THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.9754 of 2011 ORDER : The petitioner was not permitted to participate in the examination for the 2nd semester of the 3rd year B.Tech course on the ground of shortage of attendance. A memo No.ATRI/Stu/609, dated 06-04-2011 issued in that regard rejecting the representation of the petitioner is under challenge in this writ petition. In pursuit of B.Tech course, the petitioner completed 1st year and 2nd year course in the 2nd respondent-college. He also completed 1st semester of 3rd year course. The examinations for the 2nd semester of the 3rd year were scheduled to commence from 13-04-2011. He was not allowed to attend the practical examination on the ground that his attendance was only 61%. The petitioner therefore submitted a representation seeking credit of his participation in a training programme and his attendance in the technical festival conducted by the college. The explanation did not find favour, resulting in the impugned order. Admittedly, 490 classes were conducted during the semester and to achieve 65%, one should have attended at least 319 classes. However, the petitioner admittedly attended only 208 classes. As per the university instructions, the petitioner was given the benefit of presumptive attendance for 36 classes and 30 periods for Telangana bandh and two days credit for technical festival. Therefore, the petitioner achieved 60.82 % attendance. Still the petitioner did not achieve the minimum attendance of 75% (or 65% minimum with condonation). Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the college did not function for 6 days due to Telangana Bandh, therefore the petitioner is entitled for 6 days of attendance instead of 3 days credit given by the university. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the 2nd Respondent-College denying the fact that the college did not function during the entire bandh. It is further stated that the students of the college did not participate in the bandh organised on 11-01-2011. The college functioned on 11-01-2011 and also on 12-01-2011. Even though the college did not function for 6 days, the university took a policy decision to give credit to all the students in all the colleges only for 3 days. Even if 6 days attendance was given credit to the petitioner would achieve only 62.2 % attendance. Learned counsel for the petitioner however submits that the petitioner attended a seminar viz., “robotic programme” for 6 days and that the petitioner is entitled for 6 days attendance in lieu of his participation in the said programme. As per the counter of the 2nd respondent-college, the said period cannot be taken into consideration since the petitioner attended the programme on his own without the permission of the head of the department and that the project work if any should be conducted only during vacations. In view of the said statement, the petitioner is not entitled for credit on this account also. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner attended 12 special classes. The 2nd Respondent in his counter has categorically stated that the actual attendance was only 52% and only after adding the presumptive attendance, the attendance of the petitioner comes to 60.82%. Even according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner will achieve only 64.49% of the attendance giving credit to all the calculations. Still the attendance will fall short of 65%. In the light of the aforesaid facts, it is evident that even if the credit of attendance is given as pleaded, the petitioner would not achieve the minimum 65% attendance. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for in the writ petition. A Division Bench of this Court in B. Yugandhar Vs. Principal, Kuppam Engineering, College, Chittoor[1] considering the same regulations has held that the Court cannot issue a judicial fiat to the university to admit a candidate when he does not fulfil the requirement of minimum attendance even if considering permissible shortage. In view of the above, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 30th August, 2011. Skmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.9754 of 2011 Date : 30-08-2011 Between : P.Sai V.Appaji Rao .. Petitioner And Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hderabad, rep. by its Registrar and another .. Respondents [1] 2008 (2) ALT 529