IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2008 / 31ST SRAVANA 1930 W.A.No.1749 of 2008 ------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.6737/2008(B), DATED 25/06/2008 .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS IN W.P.(C):- --------------------------------------------------------- 1. HAREESH G., S/O GOPINATHAN NAIR, AGED 21 YEARS, “GOPIKA”, NAVAIKULAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. NABEEL N., S/O NAZAR, AGED 20 YEARS, SALIKA, MALAMEL PARAMBU, KANIYAPURAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 3. NISHAN.B., AGED 20 YEARS, S/O A.R. BASHEER, SIMI MANZIL, VAKKOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 4. NITHIN MANIKANTAN, AGED 19 YEARS, S/O O.G. MANIKANTAN, BHAVANARAJ, MANNOOR BHAGAM, ALANCODE P.O., ATTINGAL, BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED SRI.S.VIJI W.A.No.1749 of 2008 - 2 - RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN W.P.(C):- ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, KOCHI. 2. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION, OFFICE OF THE COCHIN UNIVERSITY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, KOCHI. 3. THE PRINCIPAL, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, GOVERNMENT I.T.I. CAMPUS, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY SRI.K.S.MOHAMMED HASHIM. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.Dattu, C.J. & A.K.Basheer, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No.1749 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 22nd day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. The appellants are 5th Semester students in Computer Science in Government College of Engineering, Attingal. Their grievance before the learned Single Judge was that they were not permitted to write the 5th Semester Examination on the ground that they did not have the requisite minimum percentage of attendance. But placing heavy reliance on Exhibit P7 communication, which was stated to have been received from the College, it was contended by the appellants before the learned Single Judge that going by the entries made in the above communication, it was evident that the appellants did, in fact, have the minimum requisite percentage of attendance to their credit. 2. The learned Judge, after considering the contentions raised by the appellants and the University as well as the Principal, found that Exhibit P7 was in respect of only one subject, viz., “Micro Processor”, and that Annexure-I produced by the Principal before the University did reveal the correct position with regard to the attendance obtained by the appellants during the 5th Semester. 3. A perusal of Annexure-I will show that the appellants had only 60%, 64%, 61% and 60% of attendance respectively during the 5th W.A.No.1749 of 2008 - 2 - Semester. It is beyond controversy that a student ought to get a minimum of 75% attendance, subject of course, to the powers of the Vice Chancellor to condone the shortage of attendance up to 5%. In other words, a student must necessarily have 70% of attendance after condonation, if any. A student who does not have minimum percentage of attendance to his credit as prescribed under the Regulations, cannot be declared to have completed the Semester. Going by Annexure-I, it was evident that the appellants did not have the requisite minimum percentage of attendance during the 5th Semester. Therefore, they could not have been admitted to the 6th Semester. 4. The learned Judge had adverted to all the above aspects carefully. We have also been taken through the materials available on record. We are satisfied that the view taken by the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference. Therefore, while confirming the orders passed by the learned Judge, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice A.K.Basheer vku/- Judge