IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8749 of 2008 Between: K. Rakesh S/o Suvarna Rao R/o Sri Keerthi Towers, Lalapet, Taranaka, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Jawaharlal Nehru Technological Unicersity, rep by its Registrar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. 2 The Principal Holy Mary Institution of Technology, and Sciencs, Ghatkesar, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, Preferably one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not permitting the petitioner to appear for 2nd Year B.Tech., (Information & Technology) Examination to be held in May, 2008 or any other date, on the ground of shortage of attendance as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and contrary to law and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear for the said examination by accepting his Examination fee and Examination form while condoning the shortage of attendance forthwith and pass such other or further orders as are necessary. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.J.KANAKAIAH Counsel for the Respondent No.1: MR.K.RATHANGA PANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.2: The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been ﬁled by K.Rakesh assailing the action of the respondents in not permitting him to appear for the 2nd semester of 2nd year B.Tech. (Information and Technology) Examinations to be held in May, 2008. 2. The petitioner joined in the Holy Mary Institution of Technology and Science, Ghatkesar-2 nd respondent during the academic year 2007-2008 for pursuing B.Tech. (Information and Technology) Course. He completed three semesters. While pursing the 4th semester, he met with an accident as a result his leg got fractured. He took treatment in Durga Bai Deshmukh Hospital, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad and Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad. He fell short of attendance in the 4th semester. The respondents did not permit him to take 4th semester examinations for want of required attendance. The action of the respondents is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 25.04.2008. 4. The 1st respondent entered appearance and ﬁled counter- affidavit. Dr.K.Lal Kishore, Registrar, JNTU, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, has sworn to the counter-aﬃdavit. It is stated in the counter-aﬃdavit that the writ petitioner has put in only 48% of attendance in the 2nd semester of 2nd year B.Tech and therefore, the petitioner disqualiﬁed himself from taking 2nd semester of 2nd year examinations. For better appreciation, I may refer para.3 of the counter-aﬃdavit and it reads as hereunder: “3. I submit that the petitioner is a student of 2nd year B.Tech., (Information Technology) in the 2 nd respondent college aﬃliated to the 1st respondent University. As per the report received from the 2nd respondent college, the petitioner has attended only 193 classes out of 401 classes conducted by the college and put in only 48% of attendance in the 2nd year 2nd semester of B.Tech., (Information Technology) which is very much less than the required attendance of 75% as per the J.N.T. University Academic regulations which are 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 1st year and/or each semester thereafter. ii) Condonation of shortage of attendance in aggregate up to 10% (65% and above and below 75%) in each semester or 1st year may be granted by the College Academic Committee. iii) A student will not be promoted to the next semester unless she satisfies the attendance requirement of the present semester/1 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/1 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/1 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. And even if attendance is condoned up to 10% as per rule 6(iv), petitioner will not get 65%. It is well settled law that shortage of attendance below 65% in aggregate shall in no case be condoned and same has been reiterated by the Apex Court in the judgment reported in 1973(2) SCC 298 and also Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the judgment reported in 2008(2) ALT 529, wherein their Lordship’s held that “Court cannot issue a judicial ﬁat to University to admit a candidate to Semester examination when he does not fulﬁll the requirement of minimum attendance even after considering permissible shortage, on the ground of sympathy, and thereby violate the mandate of Regulation 6 of Academic Regulations.”. 5 . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent University. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner met with an accident while going to the college and thereby he could not have the required attendance. 7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent University submits that the minimum percentage of required attendance is 75% and as the petitioner got 48% only, he rendered himself ineligible to appear for the 2nd semester of 2nd year examination. A further submission has been made that even if for giving some concession, the minimum percentage a student should have is 65%. He also submits that the authorities are not competent to give concession of more than 10% of attendance. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the judgments of this Court in K.Pradeep v. JNTU, Hyd.[1] and B.Yugandhar v. Principal, Kuppal Engineering College[2]. 8. In B.Yugandhar’s case (2 supra), the Division Bench of this Court held that the Court cannot issue a judicial ﬁat to University to admit a candidate to Semester examination when he does not fulﬁll the requirement of minimum attendance even after considering permissible shortage, on the ground of sympathy, and thereby violate the mandate of Regulation 5 of Academic Regulations. 9. Indisputably, the writ petitioner has only 48% of attendance in 2nd semester of 2nd year B.Tech. (Information and Technology) Course. Therefore, the action of the respondents in not permitting the petitioner to appear for the 2nd semester of 2nd year examination is justified. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:23rd September, 2008. cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT} [1] 2002 (3) ALD 667 [2] 2008 (2) ALT 529 (DB)