THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.3505 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner joined I year of B-Tech., Computer Science Engineering Course, in the 1st respondent-College, during the academic year 2006-07. He successfully completed both the semesters of I year and was promoted to II year, in the next academic year. He has completed the first semester of II year, and was promoted to second semester of that year, in December, 2007. However, he did not put in the requisite attendance in the second semester. After about one year, i.e. 22.10.2008, the 1st respondent addressed a letter to the father of the petitioner, stating that the petitioner was detained in the second semester of II year, during the academic year 2007-08, due to shortage of attendance, and that he is eligible to be admitted to second semester of II year for the academic year i.e. 2008-09. Acting on the same, the father of the petitioner paid the fee. However, it appears that the fee was treated as the one for first semester of III year, obviously because batch of students admitted along with the petitioner was promoted to that. This, in turn, has resulted in non-registration of the petitioner for the second semester of II year, during the academic year 2008-09. The mistake was noticed, only in the recent past. The petitioner seeks a writ of Mandamus to declare that the action of the 1st respondent in not giving re-admission to him in the second semester of II year, for the academic year 2008-09, as illegal and arbitrary and for consequential directions. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. There was a clear lapse, on the part of the 1st respondent in not re-admitting the petitioner to the second semester of II year, during the academic year 2008-09. The petitioner cannot be found fault with, for the mistake committed by the office of the 1st respondent, in treating the fee paid by the petitioner for a different semester. However, when it comes to the question of granting the relief, it becomes clear that the petitioner did not have the attendance for second semester of II year, much less for first semester of III year. Even assuming that, but for the mistake on the part of the 1st respondent, the petitioner would have been entitled to be admitted into second semester of III year. Such a relief cannot be granted, since the petitioner did not have the attendance, or study, for the preceding semesters. The only relief that can be granted to the petitioner is that, the 1st respondent is directed to re-admit him to the second semester of II year for the current academic year, which is about to commence. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing that the 1st respondent shall re-admit the petitioner to second semester of II year, which is about to commence for the current academic year, without insisting on payment of fee. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dated:05.11.2009 GJ