Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 668 (AP)

Pothuri Sushanth v. CVSR College of Engineering

2015-09-01

A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO

body2015
ORDER : A. Ramalingeswara Rao, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for respondents. The petitioners are studying B.Tech. in year II Semester to IV year I Semester Engineering Course in the 1st respondent-College affiliated to the 3rd respondent-University. The petitioners claim that as they got 50% of attendance, they were detained from writing 2nd year, second semester examinations. In those circumstances, the petitioners filed the writ petition seeking condonation of shortage of attendance. 2. This Court by order dated 30.4.2015 directed the respondents to permit the petitioners to write the main examinations of III/II Semester Engineer Course as well as lab examinations. 3. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed counter-affidavit stating that the required attendance as per the rules of the University is that a student should have 75% of attendance in aggregate in all subjects. However, shortage of attendance below 75% upto 65% would be condoned by the College Academic Committee. If a student does not fulfill the required percentage of attendance, he would not be promoted to next year. 4. Third respondent-University also filed a separate counter-affidavit by extracting Regulation 3(5) of the Regulations of 1985 framed under University Grants Commissioner Act, 1956 which reads as follows: "Minimum number of lecturers, tutorials, seminars, practicals etc., which a student shall be required to attend before being eligible for appearing at the examinations shall be as prescribed by the University which on an average shall not be less than 75% of the total number of lecturers, tutorials, seminars, practicals etc." 5. The relevant Regulation No. 6 is also extracted in the counter-affidavit and it reads as follows: "Attendance Requirements. 6.1. A student is eligible to write the University examinations only if he acquires a minimum of 75% of attendance in aggregate of all the subjects. 6.2. Condonation of shortage of attendance in aggregate upto 10% (65% and above and below 75%) in each semester or 1 year may be granted by the College Academic Committee. 6.3. Shortage of Attendance below 65% in aggregate shall not be condoned. 6.4. A student who is short of attendance in semester/I year may seek re-admission into that semester/I year when offered within 4 weeks from the date of the commencement of class work. 6.5. 6.3. Shortage of Attendance below 65% in aggregate shall not be condoned. 6.4. A student who is short of attendance in semester/I year may seek re-admission into that semester/I year when offered within 4 weeks from the date of the commencement of class work. 6.5. Students whose shortage of attendance is not condoned in any semester/I year are not eligible to write their end semester examination of that class and their registration stands cancelled. 6.6. A stipulated fee shall be payable towards condonation of shortage of attendance. 6.7. A student will be promoted to the next semester if he satisfies the attendance requirement of the present semester/I year, as applicable, including the days of attendance in sports, games, NCC and NSS activities. 6.8. If any candidate fulfils the attendance requirement in the present semester or I year, he shall not be eligible for readmission into the same class." 6. The respondent-University states that the writ petitioner got only 50% attendance and the shortage of attendance cannot be condoned in any circumstances. 7. This Court is not in a position to examine whether calculation of respondents in arriving at the percentage of attendance of 50% was correct or not. Learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent University relied on a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in B. Yugandhar v. Principal Kuppam Engineering College, 2002 (2) ALT 529 AP (DB); Akilesh Lumani v. Principal, Sir C.R. Reddy Autonomous College, Eluru, 2000 (4) ALD 630 (DB) and M. Sunil Chakravarthy v. Principal, Srikalahasteeswara Institute of Technology, 2005 (1) ALD 253 (DB). In those cases, it was held that none has got the power to condone the shortage of attendance below 65%. This Court also cannot condone such shortage of attendance. It was also held that if the regulation does not provide for condonation of attendance, no mandamus can be issued. 8. In view of the same, the writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. 9. At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners would make a representation to the third respondent-University, and the third respondent may be directed to consider the said representation keeping in view the career of the petitioners. 10. 8. In view of the same, the writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. 9. At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners would make a representation to the third respondent-University, and the third respondent may be directed to consider the said representation keeping in view the career of the petitioners. 10. It is needless to say that the petitioners are at liberty to submit their representations within three days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such representation being received it is open to the third respondent-University to consider the same within three days from the date of receipt of such representations. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.