Dismissed

Guduru.Tulasi, v. The State Board of Technical Education

Telangana HC26 Feb 2013WP/2630/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking admission to the V semester examination. It held that the mandatory 75% attendance rule applies, denying admission but directing that results from the interim examination be considered for future eligibility.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of, allowing the petitioner to seek re-admission in the ensuing academic year. Results from the interim examination were to be declared and considered for future eligibi

Guduru.Tulasi, Vs The State Board of Technical… — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.2630 OF 2013

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner got admission in Diploma in Electronics with Specialization in Biomedical Engineering (BME) of 3½ years duration in the Government Institution of Electronics, Secunderabad, the

¶5

3^rd respondent herein. She successfully completed four semesters, spread over for two years. However, in the V semester during the academic year 2011-12, she was not permitted to take the examinations. Thereupon, she filed Writ Petition No.33626 of 2012 before this Court. The Writ Petition was disposed of on 03.12.2012 directing that the respondents shall intimate the petitioner about the reasons for not permitting her to appear in the examination. Certain other directions were also issued.

¶6

Acting upon the order of this court, the 3^rd respondent issued a memo, dated 20.12.2012, after explaining the rule position. The 3^rd respondent stated that the petitioner was not permitted to appear in the V semester examination, since she did not put in 75% of attendance. It was further stated that though the petitioner was readmitted in the

¶7

V semester during the academic year 2012-13, she did not attend classes at all, and she was advised to get re-admission in the academic year 2013-14. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the said memo.

¶8

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.V.S.S.S.Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel, for the 1^st respondent, and learned Government Pleader for Higher Education, for respondents 2 and 3.

¶9

In the impugned memo, the 3^rd respondent has extracted the rules of promotion. The gist of the rules is that, in every semester a student must have minimum 75% of attendance as a condition for being accorded promotion to appear in the examination of that concerned semester. Admittedly, the petitioner did not have stipulated percentage of attendance in the V semester. Though she has taken that examination on the strength of the interim order passed by this court, she cannot be absolved of the obligation to put in the minimum attendance. The only alternative for the petitioner is to seek readmission into V semester in the ensuing academic year.

¶10

Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to seek re-admission in the V semester, in the ensuing academic year. The results of the examinations of back-log papers, which the petitioner appeared on the strength of interim orders of this Court, shall be declared and the respondents shall take the same into account, while determining the eligibility of the petitioner in future.

¶11

The miscellaneous petition filed in this Writ petition also stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶12

____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

¶13

Dated:26.02.2013

¶14

nvl

Guduru.Tulasi, v. The State Board of Technical Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guduru.Tulasi, v. The State Board of Technical Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aleti Rajaram Memorial Educational Society Vs The Govt of A.P.

G.Yellaiah, Vs The Secretary

Syed Shah Shakeel Ahmed Hussaini, Vs The A.P State Wakf Board rep.by its Chief Executive Officer

M/s. Suvarna Bhoomi Developers (P) Ltd, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Sri O. Malyadri Vs The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Allada Sarojini Devi, Vs The Additional Agent to the Government