1. Petitioner, a student, seeks a mandate to appear for supplementary examinations despite attendance shortage, citing medical illness, after being barred from the original end-term examinations by the University. (Para 1 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Telangana) 1038
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J.
S.Nandini - Petitioner
Vs.
NALSAR University of Law - Respondent
Writ Petition No.21904 of 2026
Decided On : 08-07-2026
Important Points
Judicial review of academic regulations is limited. Mandatory attendance requirements and rules prohibiting supplementary exams for attendance-detained students must be upheld unless the action is arbitrary or mala fide, as equitable considerations cannot override clear academic statutes.
Subject
Education Law - Academic Administration
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 21 - Manual of Policies for MBA - Rules 4.6, 4.7.2 and 5.3.5 - Shortage of attendance - Eligibility for supplementary examinations - Even in cases of genuine medical illness, a mandatory minimum attendance of 67% is required to appear for end-term examinations (Para 8) - Rule providing that a student not allowed to take end-term examinations for shortage of attendance will not be allowed for repeat examination and must re-register for the course is mandatory and leaves no discretion to the university or the court (Para 10).
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Scope of judicial review in academic matters - In matters relating to academic standards, eligibility and examination regulations, the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extremely limited - Court cannot interfere or direct an academic body to act contrary to its own regulations unless the action is shown to be arbitrary, mala fide, discriminatory or in violation of governing rules - Sympathy or equitable considerations cannot override mandatory academic rules uniformly applicable to all students (Para 14).
Facts of the case:
A first-year MBA student was detained from appearing in the second-semester end-term examinations due to a shortage of attendance, which was attributed to serious medical ailments. Despite providing medical records, the student's attendance was between 52% and 56%, failing to meet the minimum requirement. The student sought to appear for supplementary examinations; however, the respondent-university refused to issue a hall ticket, citing regulations that require students detained for attendance shortages to re-register for the entire first-year programme instead of appearing for repeat examinations.
Findings of Court:
The student did not satisfy the mandatory minimum attendance of 67% required even for those granted medical leave under Rule 4.6. Consequently, the detention from the end-term examinations was valid. Under Rule 5.3.5, such detention automatically renders a student ineligible for repeat examinations, mandating re-registration for the course.
Issues: Whether the university's refusal to permit the student to appear in supplementary examinations, despite a bonafide medical condition, was arbitrary and violative of constitutional rights.
Ratio Decidendi: Mandatory academic regulations must be upheld. When a student fails to meet the minimum attendance threshold prescribed even for medical exigencies, and where the rules explicitly prohibit supplementary exams for attendance-detained students, the court cannot exercise its discretion to override such rules based on sympathy, given the limited scope of judicial review in academic administration.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Scope of judicial review in academic matters - In matters relating to academic standards, eligibility and examination regulations, the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extremely limited - Court cannot interfere or direct an academic body to act contrary to its own regulations unless the action is shown to be arbitrary, mala fide, discriminatory or in violation of governing rules - Sympathy or equitable considerations cannot override mandatory academic rules uniformly applicable to all students (Para 14).
Facts of the case:
A first-year MBA student was detained from appearing in the second-semester end-term examinations due to a shortage of attendance, which was attributed to serious medical ailments. Despite providing medical records, the student's attendance was between 52% and 56%, failing to meet the minimum requirement. The student sought to appear for supplementary examinations; however, the respondent-university refused to issue a hall ticket, citing regulations that require students detained for attendance shortages to re-register for the entire first-year programme instead of appearing for repeat examinations.
Findings of Court:
The student did not satisfy the mandatory minimum attendance of 67% required even for those granted medical leave under Rule 4.6. Consequently, the detention from the end-term examinations was valid. Under Rule 5.3.5, such detention automatically renders a student ineligible for repeat examinations, mandating re-registration for the course.
Issues: Whether the university's refusal to permit the student to appear in supplementary examinations, despite a bonafide medical condition, was arbitrary and violative of constitutional rights.
Ratio Decidendi: Mandatory academic regulations must be upheld. When a student fails to meet the minimum attendance threshold prescribed even for medical exigencies, and where the rules explicitly prohibit supplementary exams for attendance-detained students, the court cannot exercise its discretion to override such rules based on sympathy, given the limited scope of judicial review in academic administration.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner contends that medical exigencies warrant relaxation of attendance rules under university regulations, whereas the respondent argues that mandatory detention for attendance shortages precludes eligibility for supplementary examinations. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. The court observed that academic regulations prescribing mandatory attendance are binding, and sympathy cannot override clear rules governing eligibility for examinations or the consequences of detention. (Para 7 , 8 , 14 )
4. Mandatory academic residency and attendance regulations, once violated, legally disqualify a student from appearing for supplementary examinations, precluding judicial interference under Article 226 in the absence of arbitration. (Para 9 , 10 )
5. The writ petition is dismissed, confirming that failure to meet minimum attendance requirements strictly disqualifies a student from participating in supplementary examinations according to the university’s governing policies. (Para 15 )
6. Can a student failing to satisfy the mandatory attendance requirement invoke medical illness to bypass examination eligibility criteria?
No. When academic regulations mandate a minimum attendance percentage and stipulate strict consequences for non-compliance, medical grounds cannot override these established standards unless the specific threshold for relaxation is otherwise met. (Para 8 , 9 )
7. Does a detention order for attendance shortage automatically render a student ineligible for supplementary examinations?
Yes. If the university rules explicitly state that students detained from end-term examinations due to attendance shortages are ineligible to take supplementary or repeat examinations, the university and the court must enforce this bar. (Para 10 )
8. What is the scope of judicial review regarding the enforcement of academic standards set by a university?
Judicial review is limited; courts will not interfere with academic regulations or eligibility criteria unless the university’s actions are proven arbitrary, mala fide, discriminatory, or in violation of its own governing rules. (Para 14 )
ORDER :
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J.
This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:
“… to issue a Writ or order preferably in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the Respondents in refusing to issue the Hall Ticket to the Petitioner and consequently preventing her from appearing for the First Year MBA Semester-II Supplementary Examinations commencing from 06.07.2026 and compelling her to repeat the entire First Year MBA Programme, despite the Petitioner’s genuine medical illness duly established by authentic medical records and despite the statutory provisions recognising medical leave and relaxation in deserving cases, as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, contrary to Regulations 4.4, 4.6, 4.8.1, 4.8.2, 4.8.3, 4.8.4, 4.8.5, 4.8.7, 5.2.6 and 5.6 governing the MBA Programme, and consequently direct the Respondents to forthwith issue the Hall Ticket to the Petitioner and permit her to appear in the remaining First Year MBA Semester-II Supplementary Examinations scheduled to be held on 09.07.2026, 10.07.2026 and 13.07.2026, evaluate her answer scripts, declare her results and, if declared successful, promote her to the Second Year MBA Programme with all consequential academic benefits, without insisting upon repetition of the First Year, and to pass…”
2. Heard Mr. Dr.Lakshmi Narasimha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.Kranti Kumar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for NALSAR University, appearing for the respondent. Perused the record.
3. Brief facts of the case:
3.1. The petitioner is a bonafide first year student pursuing MBA in the respondent-University and she has successfully completed her first semester with a CGPA of 7.60. During the second semester in the months of February and March, 2026, she suffered from serious medical ailments, including viral pneumonia, Lower Respiratory Tract Infection (LRTI), severe dehydration, persistent fever, productive cough, chills, rigors and repeated vomiting, for which she underwent treatment at the NALSAR Health Centre as well as Princess Durru Shehvar Children’s and General Hospital, Hyderabad and was advised complete bed rest for nearly twenty days. Owing to the said illness, she could not maintain the prescribed attendance and was consequently not permitted to appear for the II Semester End-Term Examinations conducted in the month of April, 2026. Immediately, after recovery, the petitioner resumed her academic activities.
3.2. On a representation submitted by the petitioner’s parents explaining her medical condition, seeking condonation of the shortage of attendance and tendering an unconditional apology for not having obtained prior permission for medical leave in accordance with the prescribed procedure, the Head of the Department of Management Studies (DoMS) initially assured the petitioner that she would be permitted to appear for the Supplementary/Repeat Examinations scheduled to be held in the month of July, 2026. However, on 04.07.2026, she was informed that as her backlogs exceeded four subjects, she was required to repeat the entire first year MBA programme. Subsequently, after commencement of the supplementary examinations on 06.07.2026, the respondent-University declined to issue hall ticket to the petitioner on the ground that she had been detained from appearing in the End-Term Examinations due to shortage of attendance and having backlogs in more than four subjects and therefore she was not eligible to appear for the supplementary examinations and was required to re-register for the entire first year MBA programme in accordance with the Manual of Policies for MBA (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules/Policies’).
3.3. Challenging the said action as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the Rules, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition, seeking a direction to the respondent-University to permit her to appear for the remaining supplementary
