LESS ATTENDANCE IN COLLEGE DEBARS FROM WRITING EXAMS=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.


THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU          

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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.