THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25077 of 2014 Between:
Meghana Rao Alugadda and Saraswathi and another
DATE: 24.12.2014
…Petitioner …Respondents COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER : MS. M.HEMALATHA COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT No.2 : SRI S.SRI RAM COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT No.3 : SRI DEEPAK BHATTACHARJEE THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25077 of 2014
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not declaring the results of the second semester exams of I Year MBA Course and in not allowing the petitioner to attend classes of II year for the academic year 2014-15, as illegal and arbitrary.
The petitioner averred that she was admitted in MBA Course in AEC in respondent No.2 college during the academic year 2013-14; that during the second semester exams, her name was placed in the notice board showing shortage of attendance and that she has immediately approached respondents 1 and 2 to permit her to write examinations. However, respondent No.2 has issued Circular bearing No.182/AEC/2014, dated 14.07.2014 detaining the petitioner for shortage of attendance. Feeling aggrieved by this Circular, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.20140 of 2014. By order, dated 21.07.2014, the said Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner on 27.06.2014 within one week from the date of receipt of the order and based on the said decision, respondent No.2 may take appropriate action. In the present Writ Petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that she is neither permitted to attend the classes of II Year MBA Course nor allowed to pay college fees for the academic year 2014-15.
This Court by order, dated 28.08.2014, has permitted the petitioner to pay the fees and attend the classes of II Year MBA Course for the academic year 2014-15. Subsequently, the petitioner was permitted to serve notice on respondent No.2. As respondent No.2 has not entered appearance despite service of notice, this Court has passed an order on 17.12.2014 directing respondent No.2 to show cause why contempt proceedings shall not be initiated against him for not placing information relating to representation, dated 27.06.2014.
The principal of respondent No.2 is personally present. He is represented by the learned counsel Sri S.Sri Ram. The learned counsel has communicated apologies of respondent No.2 for the bona fide mistake committed in not entering appearance. He has further submitted that there were in all 15 cases relating to shortage of attendance and that in respect of 14 other cases, though they have put in higher percentage of attendance than that of the petitioner, a decision was taken by respondent No.2 declining to condone the shortage of attendance. He has also submitted that due to bona fide mistake, the petitioner’s case could not be placed before the Committee concerned, as a result of which, though the petitioner has put in the lowest percentage of attendance, she is being permitted to attend the classes on the strength of the interim order passed by this Court. He has assured that within one week from today, the issue will be referred to the Committee concerned and a decision will be taken on the petitioner’s representation for condonation of shortage of attendance. Having regard to the explanation offered by the principal through his counsel, further action against him is dropped.
The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to take a decision within one week as held out by the learned counsel and communicate the same to the petitioner.
As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.31370 of 2014 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 24th DECEMBER, 2014.
kvni