Dismissed

H Eshwar v. University of Hyderabad

Telangana HC5 Dec 2025WP/37316/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ relief to appear for semester exams despite below-75% attendance. Court relied on Supreme Court and High Court precedents holding attendance norms are mandatory. Writ petition dismissed without costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed without costs; prayer to direct university to allow exams rejected.

H Eshwar Vs University of Hyderabad — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

ls252l

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 37316 OF 2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

H Eshwar, S/o. H. Malyadri, Age. 32, Occ. Student, Resident of QR.No.12la04 Sector 05, Bhilai Nagar, District Dugu, Chhattisgarh 490006 [email protected] Presently Residing at the University of Hyderabad 500046.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

University of Hyderabad, Rep. by its Registrar, Gachibowli, Hyderabad 500046.

¶13

The Vice Chancellor, University of Hyderabad, Gachibowli, Hyderabad 500046.

¶14

The Controller of Examination, University of Hyderabad 500046.

¶15

The Dean School of Medical Sciences, University of Hyderabad 500046.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to lssue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the RespondentUniversity in denying Petitioner^permission to write the Semester Examinations on account of attendance s from 2711112025, on the^ground of alleged shortage of attendance, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 21, and contradictory to NEP2020^principles consequently direct the respondent to^permit the petitioner to write all semester exams

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to Direct the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to appear for the ongoing Semester Examinations commencing trom 2711112025 and^permit the Petitioner to take the remaining examinations

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI ANDASU YOGESH,

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: M/s. INDUS LAW FIRM

¶22

The Court rnade the following: ORDER

¶23

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT

¶24

HYDERABAD

¶25

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.37316 of 2O25

DATE: 05.12.2025

BETWEEN:

H.Eshwar

..petitioner

And

University of Hyderabad,

¶33

Rep. by its Registrar, Gachibowli,

¶34

Hyderabad 500046 and others

¶35

...respondents

¶36

ORDER

¶37

Heard Sri Andasu Yogesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for University of Hyderabad appearing

¶38

on behalf of respondents.

SNJ W.P.No.37315 of 2025

¶43

¶44

prayer as under:

¶45

"......Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the RespondentUniversity in denying petitioner permission to write the semester Examinations on account of attendance from 27.LL.2025, on the ground of alleged shortage of at:tendance, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 arrd 2L and contradictory to NEp2o2o principres consequently direct the respondent to permit the p,:titioner to write all semester exams,,

¶46

rh. ""r. of th. p"tition". in bri.f "" p", th. rcru

¶47

i) The petitioner is a bonafide M.sc. (Neural and cognitive science) student for the July-December zozs semester and the petitioner was denied permission to write the semester examination commencing on 27.tL.2025 due to attendance falling below 75o/o.

"//

.!1 li

SNJ W.P.r{o.37316 of 2025

¶52

I I ! I ! I t I I It tI l I I II

¶53

ii) The attendance shortfall of the^petitioner occurred because of^{genuine personal} difficulties in^{August 2025 and} thereafter, the^petitioner regularly attended^classes, participated in academics, and completed all internal assessments.

¶54

iii) Inspite of repeated^{representations,the university} refused^permission, and the ULGRC also^{declinedrelaxation} without considering the NEP 2O2O^{student-friendlynorms.} Aggrieved by the same, the^petitioner approached^{this Court} by filing the^present writ^petition.

¶55

¶56

extracted hereunder:

¶57

"While deposing before the Committee,^Mr. Eshwar agreed that he had not attended^{the classes till} 3rd September, 2025 and that he had^{put up 7Oo/o} attendance in two courses and could^{not make up same} percentage of attendance in above mentioned^three courses. He also agreed that be read and^{underctoodthe}

¶58

¶59

sflJ W.P.t{o.3Bl5 ot 2025

¶60

conditions relating to the requirement of attendance in the Prospectus.

¶61

The members of the Committee carefully listened to the arguments put forwarded by Mr. Eshwar. The me nbers of the Committee engaged into in-depth discussion with Mr. Eshwar on each and every point he wa:; referring from the pronouncements of Delhi High Court and the contents of the NEP 2020. The members have explained him how the process of teaching and lear-ning happens on the University Campus and how the presence of a student plays an important role in the process of teaching and learning. He was also made to understand the processes involved in policy decision making. He was informed that the relaxation in att,:ndance which he was referring to will be a major policy decision and probably may need discussion at difterent levels and therefore the present request of him to allow him to write the end-semester without insisting recluisite percentage of attendance is not possible.

¶62

The Committee concluded that the norm en'/isaged in the Prospectus with reference to the requirement of attendance will be continued to be applied an,l no relaxation may be given to Mr. Eshwar to write th(: end-semester exam for the courses he has not put up 75olo attendance.

¶63

The meeting ended thanking the Chair."

¶64

'-.

¶65

¶66

SNJ W.P.No.37316 of 2O25

¶67

Iti 1

¶68

Learned standing counsel for the respondent University draws the attention of this court to the decision of the Grievance Redressal committee dated z&.tL.2ozs, wherein the petitioner's request for condonation of shortage of attendance was rejected. The committee held that students with attendance below 70o/o are required to repeat the course, and that the petitioner cannot be permitted to appear for the end-semester examination contrary to the mandatory attendance requirements. Since the petitioner did not secure the minimum 75o/o attendance prescribed under the rules, he was disqualified from writing the December 2025 endsemester examination.

¶69

g. The Apex Court, in the iudgment of "ASHOK I(I IMAP TI{A Kt lP v I INTI/FPSTT/ ar I{TMA'I{AI PRADESH" reported in AIR 1973 SC 221 observed as

¶70

under:-

¶71

"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

¶72

*]I4i-:1?:i':e:;r.:?ii;i1,?reiFr.qflE'iI;i:tti.:1t4'..a.,::/:,.:r.'li.|i

¶73

\ .\r

¶74

¶75

SJ W.P. 0.37316 of 2025

¶76

that the petitioner was short of 20 lectures in Civics, of l0 lectures in Economics, of 10 lectures in History and of 8 lectures in English. Now the rules as to condoning of de'iciency 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:

¶77

"(I) Taking into consideration the results of the Hcuse examinations:

¶78

(a) The Principal of a College affiliated in the Faculties of Arts, Science and Oriental Learning may condone the deficiency in lectures as under:

¶79

(i) Upto 15 lectures in each of the subjects;"

¶80

Since the petitioner's deficiency in the matter of a!:endance exceeded 18 lectures in Economics and 20 ledures in Civics, it was beyond the jurisdiction or competence of the Principal to condone this deficiency. In or,r opinion this completely destroys the case of the pe:titioner.

¶81

Considering that this case concerns the career of a young student we tried to look at the matter with all possible sympathy and consideration but we do not see how we can direct or compel an authority to. do sc,mething which is beyond its legal competence to do. Since the Principal is the only authority who can condone and since it was beyond his competence to condone the shortage in question, we do not see how we can intervene in favaour of the petitioner even if the petitioner had succeeded in making out a case for cclndonation. In our opinion, the appeal must fail on this short point. Much as we regret the unfortunate fact that the petitioner is going to lose almost two precious years of'his academic life we are in law bound to confirm the dL'cision of the High court, and dismiss the petitioner's appeal. We, therefore, do so. In the circumstances of this case, however, we are making no order as to costs.,,

¶82

,/,.

¶83

¶84

SNJ W.P.No.37316 of 2025

¶85

¶86

i: I 1 i I

¶87

'1. A Division Bench of the Hiqh Court of erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh, in "K.PRADEEP vs. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, HYDERABAD", reoorted in 2OO2( 3 ) ALD 667 considerinq identical set of facts and circumstances, and the law laid down in the earlier Division Bench in *AKILESH LUMANI v. PRINCIPAL, SIR C.R. REDDY AUTONOMOUS COLLEGE, ELURU", reported in 2OOO(4) ALD 63O, observed as under:

¶88

"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."

¶89

l : I t i I I I I I

¶90

The Division of the Hioh Court of the erstWhile State of Andhra Pradesh, in^..M.SUNIL CHAKRAVARTHY v. PRINCIPAL SREEKALAHASTEESWARA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY" reported in 2OO5(1) ALD 253, observed as under:

¶91

¶92

¶93

5N,J W.P.No.37376o12025

¶94

*4. Since nobody has power to condone the attendance below 650/o therefore, it should be assumed tha[ even this Court cannot order such a condonation. Sornething which is prohibited by the regulations cannot be subject-matter of a mandamus.

¶95