HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.16124 of 2011 Date: 08-9-2011 Between L.Ravi Theja … Petitioner and The Controller of Examinations, JNTU, Kakinada, East Godavari district and another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.16124 of 2011 Order: The petitioner, who is a student, has filed this writ petition complaining the action of the respondents detaining him in 2nd semester of the 1st year B.Tech., course for the academic year 2010-2011. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he took admission to pursue B.Tech., course in the year 2010. He was not permitted to write 2nd semester examination of the 1st year as he fell short of the requisite 75% attendance. This Court by orders dated 14-6-2011 permitted the petitioner to write the examination and further directed that the result of the petitioner shall not be declared without prior permission of the Court. 3. Heard Sri Raj Kumar Rudra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.Sudhakar Rao, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. 4. Sri Raj Kumar Rudra, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner could not fulfill the requisite attendance due to his ill-health. He could not attend the classes due to reasons beyond his control i.e., due to illness and the same is a relevant ground to be taken into consideration to condone shortage of attendance. He therefore submits that the petitioner is entitled for the relief sought for in the writ petition. 5. Sri A.Sudhakar Rao, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, contends that the petitioner put in only 62% attendance in the 2nd semester of the 1st year B.Tech., course as against 75% attendance required under Regulation-6 of the academic Regulations. It is further stated that a student is entitled for condonation of 10% attendance and should therefore satisfy minimum 65% attendance. Since the petitioner secured only 62% attendance, which is far below the required attendance, he is not entitled for the relief in the writ petition. 6. I have considered the rival contentions with reference to the academic regulations of the University. Regulation-6, which is relevant, is as follows: “6. Attendance. (i) A student has to put in a minimum of 75% of attendance in aggregate of all the subjects for acquiring credits in the I year and/or each semester thereafter. (ii) Condonation of shortage of attendance in aggregate up to 10% (75% and above and below 75%) in each semester of I year may be granted by the College Academic Committee. (iii) A student will not be promoted to the next semester unless he satisfies the attendance requirement of the present semester/I year. (iv) Shortage of attendance below 65% in aggregate shall in no case be condoned. (v) Students whose shortage of attendance is not condoned in any semester/I year are not eligible to take their end examination of that class and their registration shall stand cancelled. They may seek re- admission for that semester/I year when offered next. (vi) Condonation of shortage of attendance as stipulated in 6(ii) above shall be granted on genuine and valid grounds with supporting evidence. (vii) A stipulated fee shall be payable towards condonation of shortage of attendance.” 7. From a reading of the aforesaid Regulation it is evident that a student should put in 75% or at least 65% attendance with 10% condonation and that shortage below the said percentage shall in no case be condoned. Indisputably the petitioner put in only 62% attendance, therefore the petitioner is not entitled for condonation of attendance. 8. The learned counsel strenuously contends that the petitioner was permitted to write the examination, therefore the University is estopped from prohibiting the petitioner from pursuing further course by declaring the results. Reliance is sought to be placed on the orders dated 14-6-2011 of this Court in the instant case. 9. I am unable to accept the said contention. Even though by an interim order the petitioner was permitted to pursue the 1st year 2nd semester course, this Court made it clear that the appearance in the examination would be subject to the result of the writ petition. Further, an interim order is always subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. It is well settled that an interim order shall not prevail as a final adjudication of the matter, but it will stand merged in the final order. 10. The Regulation as extracted above is statutory which mandates that a student to be eligible for pursuing a course shall put in 75% attendance or at least 65% as the case may be. The Regulation has made it clear that shortage below 65% in aggregate shall in no case be condoned. Therefore, in the teeth of the said prohibition no estoppel can be successfully pleaded. The counsel vigorously would pursue that the petitioner was unwell which is liable to be taken into consideration. Indisputably the petitioner put in only 62% of attendance, which by no means would deserve consideration. 11. In the identical fact situation a learned Division Bench of this Court in B.Yugandhar v. Principal, Kuppam Engineering College[1] following the judgment of the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Thakur v. University of Himachal Pradesh (AIR 1973 SC 221) and a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in M.S.Chakravarthi v. Principal, Sri Kalahasteeswara Institute of Technology (2005 (1) ALD 253) held that the Court cannot issue a judicial fiat to the respondents to admit a student and thereby violate mandate of the Regulations. 12. Considering the matter as above, I am of the considered view that the petitioner since did not satisfy the requirements of the mandate of Regulation-6 of the academic Regulations by putting the minimum attendance, is not entitled for the relief sought for in the writ petition. 13. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The interim order dated 14-6-2011 stands annulled. There shall be no order as to costs. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the petitioner does not want to pursue the course in the 2nd respondent-college. Therefore, he seeks a direction to the 2nd respondent to issue “No Objection Certificate”. 15. Having regard to the said submission, the petitioner is permitted to make an application to the 2nd respondent and on such appalication being filed it is hoped that the 2nd respondent will consider the same. __________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 08th September, 2011. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.16124 of 2011 08th September, 2011. (Ak) [1] 2008 (2) ALT 529 (D.B.)