IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND TEN WRIT PETITION No.15246 of 2009 Between: Vanka Vijaya Lakshmi … Petitioner And The Principal, Gokul P.G. College for MCA & MBA, Piridi, Bobbili, Vizianagaram District and another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K.L.N.Rao. Counsel for the respondents: Sri S.Lakshminarayana Reddy for R.1. Sri Venkat Reddy for Sri K.Ratangapani Reddy for R.2. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in not calculating the attendance properly and thereby not allowing the petitioner to appear for MBA second semester examinations (internal and external) on the ground of shortage of attendance, as highly illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner also sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to allow her to appear for the said examinations. The petitioner joined respondent No.1-College, which was affiliated to Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Kakinada-respondent No.2 (for short “the University”) for prosecuting her MBA course during the academic year 2008-09. She completed her first semester course of MBA. She was not permitted to appear for the second semester examinations by respondent No.1 on the ground that she fell short of required minimum attendance of 75%. The petitioner has, therefore, filed this Writ Petition. On the strength of the interim order, dated 28-7- 2009, granted by this Court in WPMP No.20020 of 2009, the petitioner was allowed to appear for the second semester examinations, but the results were directed to be withheld. In her affidavit, the petitioner stated that she has secured 65.7% of attendance. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Principal of respondent No.1, it is, inter alia, stated that the petitioner had put in 56.39% of attendance in the second semester; and that the list of students, who got less attendance, will be displayed, month-wise, in the college notice board and, accordingly, the petitioner’s name was also displayed in the notice board. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.1 has not acted with fairness. He further submitted that even assuming that the petitioner fell short of the minimum attendance, principles of natural justice require that respondent No.1 should give a notice to the petitioner before disallowing her to appear for the second semester examinations. Opposing these contentions, Sri S.Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1, submitted that as per the Regulations of the University a student should put in minimum attendance of 75%; and that if a student falls short of attendance, the University has power to condone the shortage to the extent of 10%. He further submitted that since the petitioner failed to put in the minimum attendance of 65% to enable her to apply to the University for condonation of shortage, she is not permitted to appear for the second semester examination; and that no prior notice need be given to the petitioner. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in B.Yugandhar Vs. Principal, Kuppam Engineering College – 2008(2) ALT 529. Though the petitioner has pleaded in her affidavit that she has put in 65.7% of attendance, no material is placed in support thereof. The petitioner has not alleged that her attendance has been tampered with by respondent No.1. At the hearing, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 has placed before the Court a copy of the attendance report, which shows that as against the total number of 516 classes conducted, the petitioner has attended only 291 classes, and the average percentage of attendance accordingly worked out to 56.39%. In the face of this uncontroverted material, I cannot accept the contention of the petitioner that she has put in 65.7% of attendance. In B.Yugandhar (supra), a similar issue fell for consideration before the Division Bench, of which I am a party. Regulation No.5 of the Regulations framed by the University, which applies to the present case as well, was considered by the Division Bench. It is apt to reproduce the said Regulation hereunder: “5. 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 upto 10% (65% and above and below 75%) in each semester of 1st 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/1st year. Note: (a) Shortage of attendance below 65% in aggregate shall in no case be condoned. (b) Student whose shortage of attendance is not condoned in any semester/1st year are not eligible to take their end examination of that class and their registration shall stand cancelled. They may seek readmission for that semester/1st year when offered next. (c) Condonation of shortage of attendance as stipulated in 5(ii) above shall be granted on genuine and valid grounds with supporting evidence. (d) A stipulated fee shall be payable towards condonation of shortage of attendance”. While interpreting the said Regulation, the Division Bench held that the Court cannot issue a judicial fiat to the University to admit a candidate to semester examination if he does not fulfill the requirement of minimum attendance even after considering the permissible shortage, on the ground of sympathy. The said judgment applies in all fours to the present case. In view of the fact that the petitioner has put in only 56.39% of attendance, she is not entitled to appear for the second semester examinations. No relief, therefore, can be granted in favour of the petitioner. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Though the petitioner appeared for second semester examinations on the strength of the interim order of this Court, in view of dismissal of this Writ Petition, she is required to study the second semester of MBA afresh. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:12-3-2010 MNR