Telangana High Court
WP/40110/2012 of O. Komal Prasad, Vs Osmania University, on 31 December 2012
L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.40110 of 2012 ORDER: The petitioner is studying in the college affiliated to the Osmania University. His grievance is about the denial of permission to appear in First Semester of IV year. The Osmania University framed Rules, which, inter alia, stipulate
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDYWRIT PETITION No.40110 of 2012
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.
ORDER:
The petitioner is studying in the college affiliated to theOsmania University. His grievance is about the denial ofpermission to appear in First Semester of IV year. The OsmaniaUniversity framed Rules, which, inter alia, stipulate the conditionsfor promotion from one year to another and one semester toanother. The promotion from one semester to another woulddepend upon the adequacy of the attendance of the students. However, as regards promotion from one year to another, is onlywhen the student has cleared the required number of subjects. Inother words, the backlogs for him should not exceed those, whichare permitted. Backlogs, in turn, differ from year to year, and courseto course. The general purport of the Rule is that for promotion fromone year to the next year, the number of backlogs should notexceed 50% of the subjects in the year from which he is to bepromoted. For instance, if a candidate is to be promoted from IIIYear to IV Year, the number of backlogs must not exceed 50% ofthe subjects in the III year.
2. The examinations for the III year were conducted in July,2012. However, on account of paucity of time, the First Semester ofthe next year of the course was commenced, even before theresults were declared. Since the number of backlogs held by thecandidates are not known, it appears that the permission wasaccorded by the colleges to the students to attend the classes. Theresults of the examinations held in July were declared, sometimeafter the courses were commenced. This was followed by submission of application for revaluation by the students, who hadmore backlogs than what are permitted. That also took time. Thereafter, the University issued a circular, dated 07-09-2012,enhancing the permissible backlogs by three, in case the promotionis from II to III year or III to IV year.
3. The petitioner herein had more backlogs than those arepermitted after such increase. However, it is asserted that, hecontinued to attend the classes of First Semester of IV year. TheUniversity had denied the permission to the petitioner to appear inthe First Semester examination of the IV year, on the ground that hedid not acquire the eligibility for promotion to First Semester of IVyear.
4. The petitioner contends that there was any amount ofuncertainty, as regards the results, or backlogs, by the time the FirstSemester commenced and once he have attended the classes upto the required percentage, he cannot be denied the permission totake the examination.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learnedStanding Counsel for the University.
6 . The narrative made above discloses that the FirstSemester of IV Year was started, much before results of the SecondSemester of the previous academic year, were declared. Hence,there was no occasion for the University or the college to verify thenumber of backlogs, which a student had. Added to that, therevaluation has taken place bringing about certain changes and theissuance of circular, dated 07-09-2012, by the University enhancingthe backlogs. In this scenario, in case the petitioner has been permitted to attend the classes of First Semester of IV year, hecannot be denied the permission to take the examination. In casehe had backlogs exceeding the permissible number, a conditioncan be stipulated to the effect that he shall be entitled to take theSecond Semester examination of the IV year only after he clear thebacklogs that are remaining over and above what are permitted.
7. Hence, the writ petitions are disposed of, directing that therespondents shall permit the petitioner herein to pursue the courseand to appear in the examination of the First Semester of IV year, incase he has put in the required percentage of attendance. However, he shall not be permitted to take the Second Semester ofthe IV year, unless he brings the backlogs within the permissiblelimit by appearing in the supplementary/instant examination. Thereshall be no order as to costs.
8. The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition shallalso stand disposed of.
December 31, 2012.Note:
_____________________
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.
Issue CC in two days.B/O.KTL