JUDGMENT (Per G.S. Singhvi, C.J.)

Whether the appellant, who failed to achieve the requirement of minimum 75% attendance prescribed under the academic regulations framed by Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad (for short, 'the University'), can seek a direction for being allowed to take examination of 151 semester of the 41h year of B.E. course is the question which arises for determination in this appeal filed against order dated 8-11-2006 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition NO.23298 of 2006.

2. The appellant took admission in B.E. (Electronics and Communication Engineering) in the year 2003-04 in Kuppam Engineering College, Chittoor (for short, 'the College'). After completing three years of the course, he was admitted to the 4th year. From 26-6-2006 to 15-8-2006, he is said to have suffered from viral fever and, on that account, he could not attend the classes. As a result, he failed achieve the minimum target of 75% attendance. The Principal of the College declined to entertain his candidature for 151 semester examination scheduled to be held in November 2006. The appellant then filed writ petition for issue of a mandamus to the respondents to allow him to appear in the examination. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition by observing that even if the academic committee was to condone the shortage of attendance in aggregate upto 10%, the petitioner (appellant herein) will not be able to fulfill the requirement of minimum 75% attendance necessary for becoming eligible to appear in the examination. In the opinion of the learned single Judge, the Court cannot issue a mandatory direction to the respondents to act in violation of me statutory regulations.

3. Shri N. Ashwarthanarayana relied on order dated 27-10-2006 passed by the Division Bench in WAMP No.2354 of 2006 in Writ Appeal No.1125 of 2006 - K. Siva Sai Kumar Reddy v. The Principal, Vagdevi Institute of Technology & Science, Pedasettipalli and anotherand submitted that interim order in similar terms may be passed in the appellant's case. He further submitted that the appellant could not attend the classes due to reasons beyond his control and, therefore, the Court may sympathetically consider his prayer for being allowed to take the examination.

4. Shri K. Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel for the University relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Thakur v. University of Himachal Pradesh and of this Court in M.S. Chakravarthi v. Principal, Sri Kalahasteewara Institute of Technology and argued that the learned single Judge did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the appellant's prayer. Shri Reddy emphasized that in exercise of the power vested in it under Article 226 of-the Constitution of India read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the High Court cannot direct the University to violate the mandate of the academic regulations framed by the University. He then submitted that the plea of sympathy should not be accepted for passing an order which would compel a public authority i.e., the University to violate the statute.

5. We have considered the respective submissions. Regulation 5 of the Academic Regulations framed by the University, which has bearing on the decision of this appeal reads as under:

"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 I year and/or each semester thereafter.

(ii) Condonation of shortage of attendance in aggregate up to 10% (65% 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.

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/I year are not eligible to take their end examination of that class and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document