THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.21014 of 2009 October 12, 2009 Between: S.Seshikanth, S/o.S.Srikanth …Petitioner and Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Represented by its Registrar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad And another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.21014 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is a student of III year B.Tech (Mechanical) in Vigyan Jyothi Institute of Engineering and Technology, Bachupally, Hyderabad. Admittedly he has put in 61.66% attendance. As he failed to have minimum attendance of 75%, he was not permitted to appear for second semester of second year examination. Then he filed W.P.No.7609 of 2009. This Court while admitting writ petition passed interim orders directing respondents to permit petitioner to appear for II year examinations as well as III year classes. The writ petition being W.P.No.7609 of 2009 filed by petitioner was disposed of by this Court on 22.7.2009. In the said judgment, this Court permitted the petitioner to make a representation to the respondents and the respondents are directed to consider the case of petitioner. It is also observed therein that in case respondents rejected his claim, petitioner is not entitled to claim any equities. Accordingly petitioner represented his case to the respondents. Considering the representation, first respondent passed impugned order detaining the petitioner on the ground that 65% of attendance is mandatory. Aggrieved thereby, present writ petition is filed. Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that due to cultural functions and freshers’ day celebrations in the college, petitioner was not regular to college for some time and therefore it is a genuine case where petitioner be promoted to III year as he secured more than 67% of marks in II year and there is no backlog. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for respondent University submits that if shortage of attendance is less than 10% it is permissible for the Vice Chancellor to condone the shortage of attendance on recommendation made by the Principal. As petitioner does not have 65% of attendance, such power cannot be exercised. Though the Courts cannot be totally unsympathetic towards cases brought before them, still the law requires strict adherence to principles of law and rule of law. It is now well settled that in exercise of jurisdiction, this Court shall not issue any writ of Mandamus directing authorities to act contrary to law or rules and this Court shall not issue any writ of Mandamus which is against law. In issuing prerogative writ compelling public authority, sympathy and mercy have no place, through in extraordinary cases ex debito justitiae the Court can exercise its equity jurisdiction. In academic matters, however, it is axiomatic by reason of longline of decided cases, no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is ordinarily called for. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) October 12, 2009 YS