WA/1436/2011 of Anirudh Mittal, Vs The Osmania University, on 29 December 2011

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKURANDTHE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

WRIT APPEAL NO.1436 OF 2011

DATED:29.12.2011

Between:

Anirudh Mittal … Appellant

AndThe Osmania UniversityHyderabad, rep. by its RegistrarOsmania University Campus, Hyderabadand another … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKURANDTHE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

WRIT APPEAL NO.1436 OF 2011

JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Madan B. Lokur)

The appellant is a student of Osmania University. In the 1[st]semester of the III[rd] Year B.Tech. course, he had attendance of 60.08%.2. In terms of the Rules and Regulations of Attendance of Studentsof the University, a student must have a minimum 75% attendance toenable him to sit for the examination. However, if there are somemedical grounds available, then the minimum attendance is reduced65%.

3. Rule 2 of the Rules defines the expression “a regular course ofstudy” as meaning putting in attendance of not less than 75% of thelectures and practicals and that this provision has to be enforced strictly.

4. Rule 3 of the Rules provides that in special cases, the Vice-Chancellor may on the recommendation of the Principal/Head ofthe Department, condone the deficiency in attendance to the extent of10% on medical grounds subject to submission of a medical certificateand payment of condonation fee.

5. Rule 10 of the Rules provides that a student falling short ofattendance (75% or 65% as the case may be) should be warned inwriting every month/fortnight that he will be detained if he does notimprove his attendance. Since the appellant had only 60.08%attendance, which is even well below the 65% requirement forcondonation of delay, the Vice-Chancellor did not have the authority tocondone the default to enable the appellant to sit for the examinations.

6. It is under these circumstances that the appellant preferred a writpetition being W.P. No.32465 of 2011 which came to be dismissed by a learned single Judge by the order under appeal dt.12.12.2011.

7. We find that the view taken by the learned single Judge issupported by the Rules and Regulations of Attendance of Students ofthe University.

8. Before the learned single Judge, the appellant sought to contendthat being a student, the matter should be considered sympathetically. The learned single Judge referred to A.K. Thakur v. University ofHimachal Pradesh[[1]],a n d B. Yugandhar v. Principal, KuppamEngineering College, Kuppam, Chittoor District[[2]],and came to theconclusion that in cases like the present one, the matter cannot be dealtwith on the ground of sympathy only. We cannot but agree.

9. Before us, learned counsel for the appellant contended that theappellant was not warned of shortage of attendance and therefore hecould not make up the deficiency.

10. We find that no such averment has been made in the writ petitionfiled by the appellant nor any such ground was taken up before thelearned single Judge. We are not inclined to entertain this ground atthis stage in the absence of any pleading in this regard.

11. We do not find any error in the order passed by the learned singleJudge which is in accordance with the Rules and Regulations ofAttendance of Students of the University.

12. We do not find any merit in this writ appeal and it is accordinglydismissed. Miscellaneous application is also dismissed.

__________________

MADAN B. LOKUR, CJ

29-12-2011bnr

_______________

SANJAY KUMAR, J

[2]2008 (2) ALT 529