Judicial intervention in academic attendance regulations is limited; courts cannot condone non-compliance with university attendance rules which uphold academic discipline.

ORDER :

1. In WP.No.17720/2025, the petitioners are seeking writ of mandamus to direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to permit the petitioners to write examination of 2^nd Semester and further to take the final examination and to announce the results pertaining to the 2^nd Semester of the 5 years B.A., L.L.B., course scheduled to be held on 22.06.2025 (Annexure-A) and consequential relief as prayed.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners have joined the 5 years B.A., L.L.B., course (1^st year students of 2^nd Semester) in the respondent No.3 College affiliated to respondent No.2 University.

3. The grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition that, the petitioners have not been permitted to take ensuing examination of 2^nd Semester of 5 years of B.A., L.L.B., on the ground that the petitioners have no requisite attendance during the 2^nd Semester in the respondent No.3 College. Hence, the petitioners have preferred these writ petitions.

4. In WP.No.17772/2025, the petitioner has sought for identical relief to permit the petitioner to take up 2^nd semester examination of 1^st year B.A., L.L.B., (five year course) examination as per scheduled time table produced at (Annexure-Q), inter alia, direction to the respondents to consider the representation dated 12.06.2022 produced at Annexure-P.

5. Heard Sri.Bhadrinath.R., learned counsel for the petitioners in WP.No.17720/2025 and Sri.Dhiraj.A.K., learned counsel for the petitioner in WP.No.17772/2025, Smt.Sukanya Baliga, learned AGA for respondent No.1-State, Sri.Girish Kumar.R., learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2- University, Sri.M.P.Srikanth, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3.

6. Sri.Bhadrinath.R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that, the lack of attendance of the petitioners herein is on the ground that there is a delay in filing of remedial submissions by the petitioners, which is not a part of curriculum as such and in this regard, he has submitted that, the petitioners herein had requisite attendance to take up ensuing examination. He further argued that, on the ground of not filing the remedial submissions within the requisite period, delay has been caused, which required to be condoned by allowing this writ petition. He also submitted by referring to the Notification dated 12.05.2025 (Annexure-A) that, it is the mandatory for the college to ensure that the list of eligibility candidates to write the examination, as per the regulation of respective courses, has to be filed within the requisite period with the respondent–University. It is further contended by Sri.Bhadrinath.R., learned counsel that, the writ petition requires to be allowed by providing an opportunity to the petitioners to take up examination, as there is a clear lack of fairness and proper application of mind by the respondent college. He also pointed out that, the college is discriminating with regard to granting attendance to some of the students and he submitted that a candidate who has secured 21.89% has been allowed to take up examination, however, the same benefit has not been extended to the petitioners herein and accordingly, sought for interference of this court.

7. Sri.Dhiraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP.No.17772/2025, submitted that the petitioner herein was regular to the college, however, on account of the illness, he was not able to attend the class for few days and same has to be considered sympathetically and in this regard, he refers to the medical certificate, produced at annexure-D series and submitted that, the case of the petitioner has to be considered for permitting him to take up ensuin