HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.11349 of 2010 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 2nd year B.Tech. course. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he took admission to pursue B.Tech. course in the year 2008. He was not permitted to write 2nd semester examination of the 2nd year course as he fell short of the requisite 75% attendance. This Court by interim orders dated 12-5-2010 permitted the petitioner to write the examination and further directed that the result of the petitioner shall be subject to further orders. 3. Heard Smt.S.Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Rathangapani Reddy, learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent-University. 4. Smt. S.Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit 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. She would therefore submit that the petitioner is entitled for the relief sought for in the writ petition. 5. Sri K.Rathangapani Reddy, learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent, would contend that the petitioner put in only 60% attendance in the 2nd semester of the 2nd 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 60% attendance, which is far below the required attendance, he is not entitled for condonation. 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 60% attendance. In the light of this Regulation the petitioner is not entitled for condonation of shortage of attendance. 8. The learned counsel would strenuously contend 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 placed on the interim orders dated 12-5-2010 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 appear for the 2nd year 2nd semester course, this Court made it clear that declaration of result in the examination would be subject to further orders. It is a settled principle of law that an interim order is always subject to the final outcome of the writ petition and 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 counsel would pursue that the petitioner was unwell which is liable to be taken into consideration on humanitarian grounds. 11. It may be true that the petitioner suffered ill health and that he had a reasonable cause for not attending the classes. But this Court cannot condone the shortage so long as the Regulation has not provided for such situation. 12. In A.K.Thakur v. University of Himachal Pradesh[1], the apex Court held as follows: “5. Considering that this case concerns the career of a young student we tried to look at the matter with all possible sympathy and consideration but we do not see how we can direct or compel an authority to do something which is beyond its legal competence to do. Since the Principal is the only authority who can condone and since it was beyond his competence to condone the shortage in question, we do not see how we can intervene in favour of the petitioner even if the petitioner had succeeded in making out a case for condonation. In our opinion, the appeal must fail on this short point. Much as we regret the unfortunate fact that the petitioner is going to lose almost two precious years of his academic life we are in law bound to confirm the decision of the High Court, and dismiss the petitioner’s appeal. We, therefore, do so. In the circumstances of this case, however we are making no order as to costs.” 13. A learned Division Bench of this Court in B.Yugandhar vs. Principal, Kuppam Engineering College, Kuppam, Chittoor Dist.[2] considered the very same Regulations and citing the judgment of the apex Court in A.K.THAKUR’s case (1 supra), held as follows: “(8) In view of the aforementioned judgments, it must be held that the Court cannot issue a judicial fiat to the respondents to admit the appellant in I semester examination of the 4th year and thereby violate the mandate of Regulation 5 of the Academic regulations. (9) We are further of the view that even if the benefit of Regulation 5(ii) was to be extended to the appellant, he would not have been able to achieve the requirement of minimum 75% attendance in aggregate. Therefore, the learned single Judge did not commit any error by refusing to entertain his prayer and we do not see any reason to differ with him.” 14. In M.Sunil Chakravarthy vs. Principal, Sreekalahasteeswara Institute of Technology, Srikalahasti, Chittoor[3] while dealing with the same Regulations, a learned Division Bench of this Court held as follows: “(4) Since nobody has power to condone the attendance below 65% therefore, it should be assumed that even this court cannot order such a condonation. Something which is prohibited by the Regulations cannot be subject-matter of a mandamus.” 15. Thus 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 in the minimum attendance, is not entitled for the relief sought for in the writ petition. 16. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The interim order dated 12-5-2010 stands annulled. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. January, 2012 skmr [1] (1973) 2 SCC 298 [2] 2008 (2) ALT 529 [3] 2005 (1) ALD 253