Strict attendance requirements upheld; condonation requires Syndicate approval under university statutes, not court intervention without proper pleadings.

JUDGMENT :

Muralee Krishna, J.

The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.48465 of 2025 filed this writ appeal under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 , challenging the judgment dated 06.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.

2. Going by averments in the writ petition, the appellant is a student studying for five-year integrated course in BBA, LLB in the College of the 1^st respondent. The 9^th semester examinations, as per Ext.P1 timetable issued by the Kerala University, commence on 06.01.2026. The appellant is aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the College to allow her to appear for the 9^th semester examinations, stating the reason of shortage of attendance. According to the appellant, the shortage of attendance occurred since she was undergoing treatment in the KIMS Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, for lung infection. It is also the case of the appellant that the College did not conduct the classes for sufficient days as per the University Regulations, and also did not consider the attendance in the moot court and ADR, and hence the attendance shortage for the appellant. Showing shortage of classes conducted by the 1^st respondent and requesting to conduct additional classes, the appellant submitted Ext.P3 representation dated 30.11.2025 to the 1^st respondent and Ext.P4 complaint dated 27.11.2025 to the Registrar of the University. Thereafter, she filed W.P.(C)No.45542 of 2025 before this Court seeking a direction to permit her to appear for the examination, which was initially scheduled to be held on 12.12.2025. During the pendency of that writ petition, the 1^st respondent issued Ext.P6 letter dated 10.12.2025, denying the chance of appearance in the 9^th semester examinations for the appellant.

2.1. The appellant further pleads that similarly situated persons as that of her were given condonation of attendance by the 1^st respondent on medical grounds, and showing the same, the appellant produced Ext.P10 recommendation made by the 2^nd respondent to the 1^st respondent. With these pleadings, the appellant filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs ;

“a) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P6 letter dated 10.12.2025.

b) Issue a writ of mandamus to the respondents to allow the petitioner to appear the examination scheduled by the 2^nd respondent as per Ext.P1.

c) Direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to consider Exts.P4 & P6 to condone the shortage of attendance.

d) Direction to allow the petitioner to attend the 10^th semester classes commenced by the 1^st respondent college.”

2.2. On 06.01.2026, when the writ petition came up for consideration, the learned Single Judge dismissed the same by the impugned judgment. Paragraphs 6, 7 and the last paragraph of that judgment read thus;

“6. There is no dispute to the fact that the percentage of actual attendance of classes by the petitioner is only 6.38%. Even after adding attendance of the supplementary examinations for which the petitioner had appeared during the 9thSemester, her attendance comes to only 18.33%. Going by Clause 5 of the Regulations Relating to Integrated Five Year BBA LLB course of the University of Kerala, no candidate shall be permitted to register for the end semester examination conducted by the University unless the Principal has certified that he has obtained not less than 75% attendance in each paper. Of course, if there are valid reasons, the Principal of the institution can recommend for condonation upto 65%. The said exception will not come to the petitioner's rescue as her attendance is an aby