Telangana High Court
WP/24892/2006 of K.Balaji, Vs The Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University on 22 December 2006
SHRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 24892 OF 2006 Dated 22nd December, 2006 Between: K.Balaji … Petitioner And The Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, represented by its Registrar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad and another. …Respondents ORAL ORDER: The petitioner
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY
WRIT PETITION No. 24892 OF 2006
Dated 22nd December, 2006
Between:
K.Balaji
… PetitionerAnd
The Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University,represented by its Registrar, Kukatpally, Hyderabadand another.
…Respondents
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER:
The petitioner seeks a declaration that the action of therespondents in not allowing him to appear for the 3[rd] Semesterexaminations of M.C.A. Course comprising Practicals and Theoryscheduled from 29.11.2006 to 30.11.2006 and 04.12.2006 to13.12.2006 is illegal and arbitrary.
In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1[st] respondent-University, it is stated that as much as the petitioner did not fulfil theattendance criterion, he was not allowed to write the examinations. It is stated that the petitioner had attended 153 classes out of 320classes conducted by the college in the 3[rd] semester of M.C.A, thus,putting the attendance of only 47.8% as against the requiredattendance of 75%.
As per the academic regulations of the University minimumattendance of 75% is required to be eligible to appear for theexaminations and there is a provision to condone the shortage ofattendance only up to 10% in appropriate cases. In that view of thematter, unless one puts in minimum attendance of 65%, he is noteligible to seek for condonation of shortage of attendance, thereby,entitling him to appear for the examinations. Therefore, as thepetitioner has put in only 47.8% of attendance, less than thecondonable limit, it cannot be said that the action of the respondentsin not allowing the petitioner to appear for examinations is arbitraryor illegal. A Division Bench of this Court in M.S.Chakravarthy v.
Prl., Sreekalahasteeswara Institute of Technology[[1]]has held that something, which is prohibited by regulations, cannot besubject matter of mandamus.
The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordinglydismissed. No costs.
_____________________
22.12.2006
R.SUBHASH REDDY, J.
VR
[1]2005(1)ALD 253 (DB(