Dismissed

M.Neelakanth Sundar, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC15 Oct 2014WP/21631/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought mandamus to allow unauthorized college students to appear for II semester examinations due to alleged attendance fudging. The High Court examined the case against university regulations and an enquiry report finding student misconduct. The court held that strict adherence to attendance rules is mandatory and refused to interfere.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of writ petition; no direction to admit students despite shortage of attendance; no costs.

M.Neelakanth Sundar, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶2

Writ Petition No.21631 of 2014

¶3

Date: 15-10-2014

¶4

Between:

¶5

M. Neelakanth Sundar and 12 others

¶6

.. Petitioners

¶7

AND

¶8

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Technical Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 5 others

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶11

Writ Petition No.21631 of 2014

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

This writ petition is filed for a mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities in not permitting the petitioners to appear for the II semester of 2^nd year examination of B. Tech course from the respondent college on the ground of shortage of attendance as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to the respondent authorities to permit the petitioners to appear for the examination by issuing Hall tickets and to conduct the left out midterm and lab examinations under the supervision of University authorities.

¶14

2. The case of the petitioners is that all the petitioners are students and are studying Engineering course in the respondent college and completed two semesters of first year and I semester of second year. The classes for the II semester had commenced from March, 2014 and the management of the college developed a

¶15

peculiar attitude towards the students and had been harassing the students through various means and imposing fines if the students are late to the class or alternatively the students are forced to stand in front of Administrative Office or sit in the library during as well after college working hours as punishment. It is stated that the girl students were also abused by the college Management. Aggrieved by the acts of the 5^th respondent, all the students of the 3^rd respondent college went on boycott and the students took out precession to the Commissioner of Police as well as the District Collector's campus and there was an agreement between the management and the students and an enquiry was also ordered by the 2^nd respondent University and in the first week of June 2014, the students had once again agitated about a week for implementation of the agreement. It is also stated that the petitioners have been attending classes regularly, lab and midterm examinations and the project, viva-voce examinations were being completed. The petitioners were informed that the examinations of II semester starts from 11-08-2014 and on 17-072014, the students have approached the staff to pay examination fee and at that stage some of the students were told that they will not be permitted for the examinations as they have less attendance and the petitioners were shocked to hear and made enquiries and came to light that some of the students, who actively participated in the agitation against the management, have been targeted and the management with a malafide intention had fudged the records to show that they had not attended the classes. It is further stated that the problem has arisen in CSE & IT Department who played lead role in the earlier agitation. The 5^th respondent used to punish the students even for small mistakes and also used

¶16

to collect fines in a big way from the students without giving any receipt and due to his peculiar behaviour, the students got vexed and went on agitation complaining against the stifling atmosphere and the 5^th respondent has signed an agreement on a Non-Judicial Stamp paper and promised to follow the rules and regulations and will not hurt anyone. It is further stated that the parents have met the management and sent representations to the college as well as to the authorities of JNTU, Kakinada, but neither the college nor the Government have acted on the same and the petitioners are not permitted to appear for the II semester of 2^nd year of B. Tech course on the ground of shortage of attendance. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶17

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends because the students went on agitation against the 5^th respondent, who was in charge of CSE & IT Departments, and bore grudge against the students, who participated in the agitation, the 5^th respondent harassed by fudging attendance registers showing that the petitioners have not secured minimum percentage of 50%. He contends that though the petitioners have given representations to the respondents 1 to 3, no action has been taken thereon. He also produced a copy of the proceedings stating that the attendance is calculated up to 11-07-2014 and if such attendance is calculated up to 02-08-2014, the petitioners will have required attendance. 4. On the other hand, Sri Devakumar, learned standing counsel for the 2^nd respondent University contends that since the petitioners have got attendance less than the prescribed attendance, they were not allowed to write examinations. He further contends that an enquiry was ordered in respect of the 3^rd respondent college and proceedings dated 09-06-2014 were also

¶18

issued wherein the committee rendered findings stating that all the students who leading the agitation are under management quota and the agitation is not representing all the students and the committee also found that the students exploited and hijacked the incident to their advantage to agitate against the management to get their trivial demands fulfilled. Learned standing counsel also produced a letter dated 11-08-2014 stating that the representations of the petitioners were considered and disposed of and that only the students who did not have the minimum 65% attendance are only detained.

¶19

6. Sri L. Ravichander, learned senior counsel for appearing for the 3^rd respondent submits that after taking 10% condonable limits of attendance as per Regulations, the petitioners did not secure minimum percentage of attendance for promotion to next semester. Even if the attendance is taken up to 02-08-2014, the petitioners did not have the minimum percentage of 75%, as such, the petitioners cannot be allowed to write examinations.

¶20

7. The grievance of the petitioners is that since the petitioners participated in the agitation against the management, they have been targeted and the 5^th respondent fudged the attendance registers and sought to detain the petitioners on the ground that they have less attendance than prescribed attendance. The petitioners alleged that the college management was behaving adamantly against the students and an enquiry was also ordered. But as per the enquiry report dated 09-06-2014, three professors were constituted as Committee Members who went into the allegations levelled by the students against the college and the committee made findings as follows:

¶21

1. "The college administration has informed the mother of U Vineel on 06-06-2014 about poor attendance of her ward. The administration has informed the parents of other

¶22

students also, who had less attendance. The phone call was made by the clerk as routine activity on the advice of the Principal. The mother questioned the boy for shortage of attendance. Afterwards, he tried to commit suicide. The claim made by the students that the Principal deliberately called the mother of U. Vineel and spoke bad about the body is wrong. The mother denied receiving any call from the Principal of the college and nobody spoke about her ward.

¶23

2. A section of the students of II B. Tech started agitating on 9.6.14 and 10.6.2014 to get certain demands fulfilled from management of the college. They also did not attend II B. Tech II Sem Mid exams.

¶24

3. There is no link between suicide attempt by U. Vineel and the agitation done by a section of the students. The focus of agitation is not on the incident of suicide but on getting some of the demands fulfilled out of the situation. The mother of U. Vineel also concurred with the opinion of the committee.

¶25

4. The students exploited and hijacked the incident to their advantage to agitate against the management to get their trivial demands fulfilled. The list of demands submitted by the students is enclosed.

¶26

5. The administration cannot be blamed for the suicide attempt by U. Vineel. The students leading the agitation may not be representing all the students, as most of the agitating students are under management quota. If they are not made to realize their mistakes, there is possibility that will spoil discipline in the college and revolt against management for trivial things."

¶27

Learned standing counsel for the respondents states that the representations of the petitioners were considered and disposed of vide proceedings dated 11-08-2014, which reads as follows:

¶28

"JNTU, Kakinada has clear and unambiguous academic regulations and the regulations are well informed to the students and parents at the time of admissions. JNTUK has 270 affiliated units and all the institutes are informed to follow the academic regulations scrupulously. A student has to acquire a minimum of 75% attendance as per JNTUK regulations. Shortage of attendance will be condoned if the students have more than 65% on case to case basis.

¶29

Principals of all affiliated Colleges are asked follow the regulations scrupulously. As per the information submitted by

¶30

the Principal of the College, the College has followed all the academic regulations of the University. As per the information submitted by the College, only the students who do not have the minimum of 65% are only detained. Accordingly, the representations 1st cited, are disposed off."

¶31

Though the case of the petitioners is that the 5^th respondent has fudged the attendance registers, no material is placed before the court in respect of the same and the University also disposed of the representations filed by the petitioners and the findings extracted above show that the students are agitating against the management of the college for fulfilling their trivial demands and the allegations of the students are also found to be not correct as per the findings of the enquiry committee, and in fact the findings are made against the students.

¶32

It is to be noted that on 28-08-2014, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn as against the petitioners 3, 4 and 7 as per the orders dated 28-08-2014.

¶33

In view of my foregoing discussion and since the findings of the enquiry committee are against the petitioners, no writ of mandamus can be issued to direct the respondents for allowing the petitioners to write examinations as they do not have prescribed attendance and giving of any such direction will be in violation of the regulations framed by the University.

¶34

This Court in B. Yugandhar v. Principal, Kuppam

¶35

Engineering College, Kuppam, Chittoor District^[1] , held that there cannot be condonation of attendance against the Regulations and mandamus cannot be issued for condoning the attendance in violation of Regulations framed by the respondent-University.

¶36

In view of facts and circumstances stated above, the writ petition is bereft of any merit and the same is liable to be

¶37

dismissed.

¶38

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶39

_____________________ A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J

¶40

Date: 15-10-2014 Ksn

¶41

[1] 2008 (2) ALT 529 (DB)

M.Neelakanth Sundar, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Neelakanth Sundar, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakasi Janakiram Reddy Vs P.Ramaswamy

M/s Canara Bank, a Nationalised Bank, Vs C.Guravaiah Naidu

Bondili Padmabhai Vs Sri P.v.Venkateswarlu

Dr.Baswaraj, Vs P.Satya Reddy

Archit Bansal Vs Ibs, Hyderabad (Indian Business School)

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Vs Nandam , Nandigunti Padama