IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 10966 of 2009 Between: J. Sai Hemanth S/o J.V. Sham Rao Aushapur Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, R/o. 3- 13-1/6A, R.K. Arcade Srinivasapuram, Ramanthapur, R.R. District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Principal Secretary Government of A.P., Higher Education Department Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Secretary A.P. State Council of Higher Education Masab Tank, Hyderabad. 3 The Registrar, Jawaharlal Nehru Institute of Technology University, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. 4 Vignan Bharati Institute of Engineering & Technology Aushapur Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, 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 will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 5to 4 in not issuing the Hall Ticket and not permitting the petitioner to write the examination of B.E. 1st Year I.T. from 4th respondent institute as illegal, arbitrary and unfair and opposed to principles of Natural Justice as non permitting the students to take the exam on attendance issue is discriminatory and consequently direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to write the examinations of B.E. 1st year scheduled to be held from 4th June, 2009 onwards and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT.J.VIJAYALAKSHMI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR EDUCATION The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No : 10966 of 2009 O R D E R : The petitioner is a student of Engineering course in the 4th respondent-college. This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not allowing the petitioner to appear for the first year examinations on the ground that he had put in less than 75% of attendance in aggregate. Heard both sides. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he had put in more than 65% of attendance and therefore, as per Section 6(ii) of the Academic Regulations made by the JNTU, the College Academic Committee is competent to grant the condonation of shortage of attendance. It is contended by the petitioner that the shortage of attendance in his case was for genuine and valid grounds and therefore, the College Academic Committee, ought to have condoned the shortage of attendance and the respondents ought to have permitted the petitioner to appear for the examinations. Despite notice, the 2nd respondent failed to appear before this court and no counter affidavit is filed contradicting the plea of the petitioner. As held by this Court in W.P.No.24114 of 2008 and batch dated 30.06.2009, shortage of attendance below 65% in aggregate shall not be condoned in any case. However, if the shortage is between 65% and 75%, the College Academic Committee is competent to condone the same for genuine reasons. In the instant case since the petitioner has asserted that he had attendance above 65% and the shortage if any was for genuine reasons and could be condoned, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition permitting the petitioner to make an appropriate representation before the University as well as the College furnishing the details of his attendance and explaining the reasons for his absence along with supporting material on or before 31-07-2009. If any such application is made within the time prescribed above, the College Academic Committee shall consider the same in accordance with law and submit its report to the University within one week thereafter. On the basis of such report, the University shall pass a final order with regard to eligibility of the petitioner to appear for the examinations. Till such time, the petitioner shall be permitted to appear for the next semester classes subject to the final order that may be passed by the University. It is made clear that this shall not entitle the petitioner to claim any equities in case the decision of the University goes against him. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 22-07-2009 Note: Issue C.C. in 2 days. B/o KLP