WA/1453/2011 of Malladi Harsha Vs Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University on 30 December 2011

HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B.LOKURANDHONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

WRIT APPEAL NO.1453 OF 2011

Dt: 30-12-2011.

Between:

SMT.MALLADI HARSHA .. APPELLANT

AND

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICALUNIVERSITY, KAKINADAREP.BY ITS REGISTRAR,KAKINADA, E.G.DISTRICTAND ANOTHER .. RESPONDENTS

HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B.LOKURANDHONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

WRIT APPEAL NO.1453 OF 2011

JUDGMENT: (PER HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI Madan B.Lokur)

The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 9.11.2011 passedby the learned single Judge in W.P.No.29484 of 2011.

2. The appellant was studying in the first semester of 4[th] yearB.Tech. course in Sri Mittapalli Institute of Technology for Women,Guntur under Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Kakinada.For convenience Sri Mittapalli Institute of Technology for Women,Guntur is referred as the ‘Institute’ while Jawaharlal NehruTechnological University, Kakinada is referred as the ‘University’.

3. During the third year of the course the appellant got married andconceived. She gave birth to a child on 28.6.2011. Thereafter, shestopped attending classes for some time and as a result thereof shefell short of the minimum attendance of 75% required for enablingher to sit for the semester examinations.

4. According to the appellant, she attended the Institute for 60 daysout of 180 days and therefore she had 60% attendance, but accordingto the Institute she attended only some classes on the days mentionedby her and in fact her attendance was 37.4%.

5. Notwithstanding this controversy, the learned single Judgeproceeded on the basis that the attendance of the appellant was 60%and dismissed the writ petition.6. The learned single Judge referred to Regulation No.5 of the Academic Regulations, 2008 of the University for B.Tech (Regular)course. This Regulation reads as follows:

“ 5. Attendance Requirements:

i.A student shall be eligible to appear forUniversity examinations if acquires a minimum of75 % of attendance in aggregate of all thesubjects.University examinations if acquires a minimum of75 % of attendance in aggregate of all thesubjects.

ii.Condonation of shortage of attendance inaggregate upto 10% (65 % and above and below75%) in each semester or 1[st] year may be grantedby the College Academic Committee.aggregate upto 10% (65 % and above and below75%) in each semester or 1[st] year may be grantedby the College Academic Committee.

iii.A student will not be promoted to the nextsemester unless he satisfies the attendancerequirement for that present semester / 1[st] year,as applicable. They may seek re-admission forthat semester/ 1[st] year when offered next.semester unless he satisfies the attendancerequirement for that present semester / 1[st] year,as applicable. They may seek re-admission forthat semester/ 1[st] year when offered next.

iv.Shortage of Attendance below 65% in aggregateshall in NO case be condoned.shall in NO case be condoned.

v.Students whose shortage of attendance is notcondoned in any semester/ 1[st] year are noteligible to take their end examination of that classand their registration shall stand cancelled.condoned in any semester/ 1[st] year are noteligible to take their end examination of that classand their registration shall stand cancelled.vi.A stipulated fee shall be payable towardscondonation of shortage of attendance.”condonation of shortage of attendance.”

7. It is clear from a reading of the aforesaid Regulation that theauthorities cannot waive the attendance requirement of 75% exceptto the extent of 10 %. Therefore, a student must get atleast 65 %attendance in the aggregate and it is made clear by Regulation 5 (iv)that shortage of attendance below 65% in aggregate shall in no casebe condoned.

8. The appellant had 60% attendance and therefore the respondentswere fully justified in declining permission to the appellant to sit for thesemester examination.

9. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that his clientwas absent on maternity grounds and therefore there should be somesympathetic consideration in this regard. He also submitted that it is acase of married women who wants to continue her studies andtherefore the respondents should look into the matter with greater sympathy.

10. This argument was placed before the learned single Judge andrejected after relying upon a decision of Supreme Court inA.K.THAKUR v. UNIVERSITY OF HIMACHAL PRADESH[[1]]and thedecisions of this court in B.YUGANDHAR v. PRINCIPAL, KUPPAMENGINEERING COLLEGE, KUPPAM, CHITTOOR DIST.[[2]],M.SUNIL CHAKRAVARTHY v. PRINCIPAL,SREEKALAHASTEESWARA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,SRIKALAHASTI, CHITTOOR[[3]]and K.PRADEEP v. JAWAHARLALNEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, HYDERABAD[[4]].

11. We see no reason to take a view different from what asconsistently been expressed by this court. As far as the decisionrendered by the Supreme Court is concerned we are, of course, boundto follow it.

12. Under the circumstances, we do not find any error with the viewtaken by the learned single Judge that it is not possible to condone theabsence of the appellant in attending classes and that the shortfall ofattendance cannot be condoned under the Academic Regulations.13. There is no merit in this writ appeal, it is dismissed.

14. The miscellaneous application is also dismissed.

Dt: 30-12-2011.

( MADAN B.LOKUR, CJ )

( SANJAY KUMAR, J )

TNB

[1](1973) 2 SCC 298[2]2008(2) ALT 529[3]2005(1) ALD 253[4]2002(3) ALD 667