//
you're reading...
CHEQUE BOUNS CASE

The petitioner by the time of filing of the Writ Petition was in IV year 1st semester B.Tech (Bio-technology) course studying in the 2nd respondent’s college i.e. Sreenidhi Institute of Science and Technology, Ghatkesar, Hyderabad, which is affiliated to 1st respondent University. She was not allowed to take IV year 1st semester examinations scheduled from 08.11.2010, on the ground that she was not having required percentage of attendance. Questioning the same, the petitioner approached this Court with this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of In

Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyd...

Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

Sreenidhi Institute of Science and Technology

Sreenidhi Institute of Science and Technology (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

WRIT PETITION No.27426 of 2010

20.01.2012

Ms.Udari Lata Maisaiah

The Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University & another

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Parsa Anantha Nageswara Rao

Counsel for Respondent No.1: K.Rathanga Pani Reddy

^Counsel for Respondent No.2: Mohan Vinod & Associates

? Cases referred:
2008 (2) ALT 529 (D.B.)

ORDER:

The petitioner by the time of filing of the Writ Petition was in IV year 1st
semester B.Tech (Bio-technology) course studying in the 2nd respondent’s college
i.e. Sreenidhi Institute of Science and Technology, Ghatkesar, Hyderabad, which
is affiliated to 1st respondent University. She was not allowed to take IV year
1st semester examinations scheduled from 08.11.2010, on the ground that she was
not having required percentage of attendance. Questioning the same, the
petitioner approached this Court with this Writ Petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India seeking ‘Writ of Mandamus.’ At the outset, Sri L.Ravi
Chander, advocate who submitted arguments on behalf of the petitioner, fairly
conceded that in case the petitioner did not have 65% of attendance, then she is
not eligible for appearing for the examinations and that the petitioner has no
remedy before this Court.
2. The 1st respondent’s counsel placed reliance on B.Yugandhar Vs. Principal,
Kuppam Engineering College, Kuppam, Chittoor District1 of this Court, wherein
Division Bench of this Court while confirming order passed by Single Judge of
this Court in a Writ Petition held that no direction can be given to the
University to violate mandate of academic regulations on a plea of sympathy.
Therefore, it has to be seen whether the petitioner’s case falls within academic
regulations of the University for the course.

3. Academic regulations of Bio Medical Engineering for B.Tech 4 year degree
course of the 1st respondent University prescribe regulations regarding
attendance to the following effect:
“6. 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 upto 10% (65% and above
and below 75%) in each semester or I year may be granted by the college
academic committee.
——————————————————–
——————————————————–
——————————————————–
(vi) Condonation of shortage of attendance as stipulated in 6(ii) above shall be
granted on genuine and valid grounds with supporting evidence.”

4. It is contended for the petitioner that the petitioner did project work
from 10.06.2010 to 30.07.2010 in Centre for Liver Research and Diagnostics and
that if the said period is taken into account as attendance, since doing mini
project work is part of academic regulations of the course, then the petitioner
will fall within regulation 6(ii) of the above regulations.

5. As per contention of the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of
this petition, the petitioner had put up 52.95% of attendance. But, the 1st
respondent in the counter averred that the petitioner was having 62% of
attendance for that semester in question. It is stated by the Standing Counsel
for the 1st respondent that if presumptive attendance is given for the candidate
for preparation holidays, etc., then total percentage of the petitioner’s
attendance comes to 62%. Since the percentage of attendance given by the 1st
respondent is beneficial to the petitioner, the petitioner’s attendance is taken
as 62% during the relevant semester.

6. In Para 3 of the affidavit filed in support of this petition,it is 
pleaded by the petitioner that she completed her project work in Owaisi Hospital
for the duration of 01.06.2010 to 11.07.2010. Contrary to the said averment in
the petitioner’s affidavit, certificate is filed by the petitioner from
Scientist and Lab Supervisor of Centre for Liver Research and Diagnostics, to
the effect that the petitioner completed the project work at that center and
Allied Hospitals in Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad, under his guidance and supervision
from 10.06.2010 to 30.07.2010. The said certificate is filed along with
W.P.M.P.No.22589 of 2011 in this Writ Petition. It is evident that the
petitioner is going on changing her stand from stage to stage and going on
giving dates of her choice which are suitable to her case. Inspite of filing
the said certificate, it is not the petitioner’s allegation in any affidavit
that she did project work from 10.06.2010 to 30.07.2010. To repeat, as per Para
3 of the affidavit filed in support of this Writ Petition, she did project work
and completed the same during the period from 01.06.2010 to 11.07.2010. The
period of 01.06.2010 to 11.07.2010 falls within summer vacation. Any alleged
project work stated to have been done by the petitioner during summer vacation
cannot be taken into consideration for reckoning attendance to classes.
According to the petitioner, as alleged in Para 4 of the affidavit filed in
support of the Writ Petition, she was suffering from viral fever from 12.07.2010
to 31.07.2010. It is contended for the petitioner that in case it is relegated
to the academic counsel of the 1st respondent-University to consider whether the
period from 12.07.2010 to 31.07.2010 has to be reckoned as attendance to the
classes, then it will help the petitioner in case the said period is reckoned as
attendance to classes. As per Regulation 6(vi), the University has power to
condone shortage of attendance as stipulated in Regulation 6(ii) for genuine and
valid grounds with supporting evidence. Condonation of shortage of attendance
as per Regulation 6(ii) arises only to the extent of aggregate upto 10% i.e. 65%
and above and below 75%. In this case, the petitioner as per her case was
having 52.95% of attendance and as per the 1st respondent’s case was having 62%
of attendance. In any event, Regulation 6(vi) cannot be invoked either by the
petitioner or by the University authorities for condonation of attendance, since
the petitioner’s attendance is admittedly below 65%. Therefore, both on facts
as well as on Rule position, the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to consider
condonation of attendance of the petitioner; and the question of relegating the
decision to the University authorities in this case will not arise. In the
circumstances, the petitioner has no right and is not eligible for attending IV
year 1st semester examinations of B.Tech course.

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
______________________________
JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
Dt:20.01.2012

Advertisements

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: