THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.6407 OF 2010 Dated 26th July, 2010 Between: G.Navaneetha …Petitioner And The Osmania University and two others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri S.M.Subhan Counsel for respondents 1 and 2: Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee Counsel for respondent No.3: Sri D.Prabhakar Reddy The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not allowing the petitioner to attend the class work and appear for IV-Year B.E Internal Examinations of BE 4by4 II- Semester (CSE) Course scheduled to be held from 18.03.2010 on the ground of shortage of attendance as illegal and contrary to the Regulations of respondent No.1-University and the order in Writ Petition No.24230 of 2009. The petitioner was the IV-year student of B.E (CSE) Course of respondent No.3-College affiliated to respondent No.1-University. The petitioner was not issued hall ticket for appearing in the IV-Year examinations scheduled to be commenced from 19.11.2009 on the ground of shortage of attendance. The petitioner has therefore filed W.P.No.24230 of 2009. By interim order dated 11.11.2009, this Court permitted the petitioner to appear in the main examinations. The writ petition was disposed of by order dated 25.11.2009 with the direction to the Controller of Examinations to take appropriate steps after obtaining necessary particulars about the actual attendance of the petitioner. This Court further directed that in case the Controller of Examinations finds that the petitioner was entitled to appear in the examinations, the petitioner’s results of IV-year B.E examinations shall be declared and conversely if the petitioner was found ineligible to appear for the examinations, her further study shall be regulated as per the relevant Regulations. According to the petitioner, she made a representation on 25.02.2010 to the Controller of Examinations. On the plea that the said representation was not disposed of, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. This Court has adjourned the case on many occasions to enable the respondents to place before the Court the action taken on the order passed by this Court earlier for disposal of the representation of the petitioner. As no information was forthcoming, this Court directed the Controller of Examinations to be personally present in the Court. In pursuance of the said direction, the Controller of Examinations is present today. Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the University, has placed before the Court memo dated 18.06.2010 issued by the Registrar of the University, wherein it is stated that the letter addressed by the Principal of respondent No.3-College shows that the petitioner had only 45% of attendance for classes held from 13.07.2009 to 10.11.2009 and that she has attended only 162 out of 363 classes held during the said period. It is further stated in the said memo that even after adding 15% of attendance towards condonation due to medical grounds i.e., pregnancy, the total percentage of the attendance comes to 60% as against required 75% attendance. In view of shortage of attendance, the petitioner is declared ineligible to write the examinations of B.E. IV- year first semester (CSE) and has accordingly cancelled the examinations written by her in pursuance of the directions given by this Court. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that this memo was communicated to the petitioner through the Principal of respondent No.3-College. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 has, however, stated that he has no instructions on this aspect. Be that as it may, respondent No.1 has disposed of the petitioner’s representation as directed by this Court, though belatedly. As noted above, respondent No.1 has examined the petitioner’s case and concluded that in view of shortage of attendance below the required percentage, she is not eligible for appearing for the first semester of IV-Year final examinations and accordingly the examinations written by the petitioner were cancelled. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out with reference to any material that the conclusion reached by respondent No.1 on the shortage of attendance is incorrect. In this view of the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere in the matter. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP No.8265 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 26th July, 2010 vrn