In common order for multiple writ petitions filed by engineering students challenging their denial of exam appearance due to low attendance, the Court applied college rules limiting principal's condonation power to 10% on medical grounds only.
Writ petitions were dismissed as the college lacked jurisdiction to condone the attendance deficiency.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
W.P.NOS.7876, 7955, 7961, 8048, 8190, 9722, 9957, 13327, 13390 AND 13398 OF 2019
COMMON ORDER
Since, the issue involved in all these writ petitions is one and the same, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2
3
only to an extent of 10% in special circumstances, that too on medical grounds and beyond that, on any ground whatsoever, he has no jurisdiction to condone the shortage of attendance. As all the petitioners have attendance less than 65%, the deficiency in the attendance cannot be condoned by the Principal, and sought for dismissal of writ petitions.
are extracted as under for ready reference:
2(i) A regular course of study for eligibility to appear at the B.E./B.Tech. examination of any semester shall mean putting in attendance of not less then 75% aggregate in lectures/theory, practicals, drawings, workshops, project, seminars etc. The cumulative monthly attendance in each subject and the aggregate attendance shall be displayed on the notice board.
(iii) In any semester of the course if a candidate fails to secure the minimum percentage of attendance, he/she shall not be eligible to appear in the examination of that semester and he/she shall have to enroll himself/herself to undergo afresh a ‘Regular Course of Study’ of corresponding semester in subsequent academic session, in order to become eligible to appear for the examination.
3(i) In special cases and for sufficient cause shown, the principal may, on special recommendation of the Head of the Department, condone the deficiency in attendance
4
to the extent of 10% on medical grounds subject to submission of medical certificate and payment of condonation fee.
From a reading of the above rules it is clear that in a regular course of study to become eligible to appear for B.E./B.Tech., examination of any semester, the student has to put in not less than 75% aggregate in lectures, practicals, drawings, workshops, field work, project, seminars extension etc. Under Rule 3(i), power is conferred on the Principal to condone the deficiency of attendance to an extent of 10% on medical grounds in special cases, and for sufficient cause shown, and on recommendation of the Head of the Department. Beyond 10%, no power is conferred on the Principal to condone the deficiency of attendance on any grounds.
ORS.1 held as under:
“4. The only question that now remains is whether the petitioner’s deficiency in the matter of attendance could be condoned by any authority. The final lecture statement of the Bilaspur and Dharmsla colleges show that the petitioner was short of 20 lectures in Civics, of 10 lectures in Economics, of 10 lectures in History and of 8 lectures in English. Now the rules as to condoning of deficiency in the mater of attendance of lectures are to be found in Chapter XV of the Punjab University Calender 1969. Volume III (Rules). The relevant Rule is 1(a) and the material portion of it is in the following terms:
“(I) Taking into consideration the results of the House examinations:
(a) The Principal of a College affiliated in the Faculties of Arts, Science and Oriental Learning may condone the deficiency in lectures as under:
(i) Upto 15 lectures in each of the subjects;”
Since the petitioner’s deficiency in the matter of attendance exceeded 18 lectures in Economics and 20 lectures in Civics, it was beyond the jurisdiction or competence of the Principal to condone this deficiency. In our opinion this completely destroys the case of the petitioner.
1 AIR 1973 SC 221
5
ELURU3 , held as under:
“7. In the instant case as the appellant has not secured the required attendance to make him eligible for appearance at the examination, this Court cannot issue a mandamus as prayed for. In our opinion the requirement prescribed by the University is not only a salutary one but also essential one and that attending the college or educational institution is an essential element of education.”
Pradesh, in M.SUNIL CHAKRAVARTHY vs. PRINCIPAL
SREEKALAHASTEESWARA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY4 , in identical set
of facts and circumstances, considering various judgments, held as under:
“4. Since nobody has power to condone the attendance below 65% therefore, it should be assumed that even this Court cannot order such a condonation. Something which is prohibited by the regulations cannot be subject-matter of a mandamus.
2 2002(3) ALD 667
3 2000(4) ALD 630
4 2005(1) ALD 253
6
allowing a student to write semester examination as per Rules, is 75% and the Principal is conferred with jurisdiction to condone shortage of attendance only up to 10%.
of study, has no option, but to dismiss the writ petitions.
as to costs.
---------------------------------------------
A.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J
DATE:03—07—2019
AVS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Principal of the college has the jurisdiction to condone student attendance deficiency beyond 10% when it exceeds 65%.
Whether this Court can direct an authority to condone attendance deficiency that is beyond its legal competence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ashok Kumar Thakur v. University of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.Relied on¶14
Ashok Kumar Thakur v. University of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., 1 AIR 1973 SC 221 · Who else cites this
K.Praadeep vs. Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, HyderabadRelied on¶14
K.Praadeep vs. Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad, 2002(3) ALD 667
Akilesh Luman v. Principal, Sir C.R. Reddy Autonomous College, EluruRelied on¶14
Akilesh Luman v. Principal, Sir C.R. Reddy Autonomous College, Eluru, 2000(4) ALD 630
M.Sunil Chakravarthy vs. Principal Sreekalahasteeswara Institute of TechnologyRelied on¶15
M.Sunil Chakravarthy vs. Principal Sreekalahasteeswara Institute of Technology, 2005(1) ALD 253
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Students petitioners
Osmania University
Unknown Respondent 3
Chaitanya Bharathi Institute of Technology
A. Rajasheker Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
