IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI
WRIT PETITION NOs.24114, 24376, 24406, 24444, 24481, 24501,
24505, 24632 & 29166 OF 2008 AND
WRIT PETITION Nos.7460, 11142 & 7932 OF 2009
In WRIT PETITION NO : 24114 of 2008
Between:
P. Sankeerh Mouli, S/o. P. Raja Mouli, Studying IInd Year B. Tech of C.S.E. In Aurora's Technological and Research Institute, Bearng roll No.
07841A0544, R/o. H.No. 2-1-402/A, Nallakunta, Hyderabad.
. PETITIONER AND
1 Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad, Rep. byits Registrar.
2 The Principal Aurora's Technological and Research Institute, Parvathpur, Uppal, Hyderabad.
. RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear for the examination of the 1st semester of II Year B.Tech., C.S.E. declaring that the Regulation 5 of the academic Regulations of the 1st respondent in so far as it stipulates the aggregate attendance of a semester rather the aggregate of the academic year and in not giving opportunity to the petitioner to make good of attendance shortage of a particular semester in the next semester is highly unjust, irrational, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondents : MR. K.RATHANGA PANI REDDY
In WRIT PETITION NO : 24376 of 2008
Between:
P. Rajesh Kumar S/o. P. Satyanarayana R/o. H.NO.12-11-561, Warisguda, Secunderabad.
. PETITIONER AND
1 The Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, rep. by its Vice Chancellor, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.
2 The Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, rep. by its Controller of Examinations, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.
3 The Scient Institute of Technology, Khanapur (V), Ibrahimpatnam - 501 506, R.R. District, rep. by its Principal.
. RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the high handed action on the part of the respondents in not accepting the petitioner to pay the examination fee for the 2/1 Semester of Information & Technology Examination forthwith and thereby not permitting the petitioner to write the said examination which is scheduled to commence from 10.11.2008, as illegal, arbitrary, besides violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of India, consequentially directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to pay the examinations fee for the 2/1 semester of Information and Technology Examination.
Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. BANGINATI NARENDER Counsel for the Respondents : MR. K.RATHANGA PANI REDDY In WRIT PETITION NO : 24406 of 2008 Between:
1 M.Ajay Babu S/o.M.Babu Rao R/o.sri Sai Building Material Center Mangapet Mandal, Kamalapur village, Warangal District
2 G.Niranjan S/o.G.Sankar R/o.H.No.6-88, Near Market Mulugu mandal Warangal District . PETITIONER(S) AND
1 The Jawaharlal Nehru Technology University, rep.by its Vice Chancellor, Kukatpally, Hyderabad
2 The Jawarlal Nehru Technology University, rep.by its Controller of Examination, Kukatpally, Hyderabad
3 The Balaji Institute of Technology & Science , rep.by its Principal, Laknepally, Narsampet, Warangal-506331 . RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a suitable writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the highhanded action of the respondents in not permitting the petitioners to pay the examination fee for 4/1 semester of B.Tech examination and thereby not permitting the petitioners to write the said examinations which are proposed to be commenced from 10.11.2008 as illegal, arbitrary, and Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and direct the respondents to permit them to pay the examination fee for 4/1 semester of B.Tech examination and consequently permit the petitioners to appear for examination commencing from 10.11.2008.
Counsel for the Petitioner : SMT. S.A.V.RATNAM Counsel for the Respondents : MR. K.RATHANGA PANI REDDY In WRIT PETITION NO : 24444 of 2008 Between:
Nimma Pavan S/o. Nimma Guruvaiah R/o. Kodad, Nalgonda District.
. PETITIONER AND
1 The Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District, rep. by its Registrar.
2 M/s. Madhira Institute of Technology and Sciences, Kodad, Nalgonda District, rep. by its Principal.
. RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not allowing the petitioner to writ IV th year Ist Semester of Engineering (EEE) to be held from 10.11.2008 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to writ IVth year Ist Semester of Engineering (EEE) commencing from 10.11.2008.
Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. A.PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents : MR.K.RATHANGA PANI REDDY In WRIT PETITION NO : 24481 of 2008 Between:
P. Kalyan Veena S/o. P.V. Narasimha in Aurora's Technological & Research Institute, Bearing Roll No.07841A0519.
Residing at Hyderabad.
. PETITIONER AND
1 Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Rep. by its Registrar Hyderabad.
2 The Principal Aurora's Technological & Research Institute Parvathapur, Uppal, Hyderabad.
. RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear for the examination of the 1st semester of II Year B.Tech., C.S.E., declaring that the Regulation 5 of the academic Regulations of the 1st respondent in so far as it stipulates the aggregate attendance of a semester rather the aggregate of the academic year and in not giving opportunity to the petitioner to make good of attendance shortage of a particular semester in the next semester is highly unjust, irrational, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondents : MR. K.RATHANGA PANI REDDY
In WRIT PETITION NO : 24501 of 2008
Between:
B. Naveen Kumar S/o. Krishna R/o. Rajapet, Nalgonda Dist.
. PETITIONER AND
1 Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Rep. by its Registrar Masab Tank, Hyderabad.
2 Arora Engineer College Rep. by its Principal Bhongir, Nalgonda Dist.
. RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not permitting the petitioner to pay the examination fee for the 1st semester of final Year B.Tech., Course enabling him to appear for the examinations to be scheduled to be conducted from 12-11-2008 and further declare the Regulation of the Academic Regulation of the 1st respondent in so far as it stipulates the aggregate attendance of the semester rather than the aggregate of the academic year by not giving opportunity to the petitioner to make good of attendance shortage of a particular semester in the next semester, as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to receive the examination fee from the petitioner, to enable him to appear for the first semester final year examination B.Tech (I.T.) Course in the 2nd respondent college, scheduled from 12-11-2008 onwards.
Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. J.UGRANARASIMHA Counsel for the Respondents : MR. K.RATHANGA PANI REDDY In WRIT PETITION NO : 24505 of 2008 Between:
K. Sairaj Anand, S/o. Sri K. Dayanand, R/o. Flat No. 204, 3rd Floor, Prashanthi Apartments, Indira Nagar, Kothapet, Hyderabad.
. PETITIONER AND
1 The Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Rep. by its Vice Chancellor, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.
2 The Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Rep. by its Controller of Examinations, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.
3 The Scient Institute of Technology, Khanapur (V), Ibrahimpatnam - 501 506, Ranga Reddy District, Rep. byits Principal.
. RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the high-handed action on the part of the respondents in not accepting the petitioner to pay the examination fee for the 2/1 Semester of Information & Technology Examination for which the last date is 7-11-2008 with late fee and thereby not permitting the petitioner to write the said examination which is scheduled to commence from 10-11-2008, as illegal, arbitrary, besides violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, consequentially directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to pay the examination fee for the 2/1 Semester of Information & Technology Examination.
Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. BANGINATI NARENDER Counsel for the Respondents : MR.K.RATHANGA PANI REDDY In WRIT PETITION NO : 24632 of 2008 Between:
B. Sandeep Goud S/o. B. Narsimhadas Goud R/o. 14-10-1303/1304, Purana Pool Dhoolpet Road, Hyderabad.
. PETITIONER AND
1 The Registrar Jawaharlal Nehru Technical University Kukatpally, Hyderabad.
2 The Principle, CVR College of Engineering, Vastunagar Mangal Pally Village, Mandal, Ibrahimpatnam , District Ranga Reddy.
. RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to pass an order or writ particularly writ in the nature of the Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not allowing the petitioner to write 1st Semester of the IV th year B. Tech External Examination CSIT Branch with Roll No. 03B81A1244 by receiving the Examination Fee for the exams to be held from 12th Nov. 2008 to 26th Nov. 2008 as arbitrary illegal, and high handed on their part and pass any other suitable orders in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.
Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. BAJRANG SINGH THAKUR Counsel for the Respondents : MR. K.RATHANGA PANI REDDY In WRIT PETITION NO : 29166 of 2008 Between:
B.Naveen Kumar, S/o. Krishna, R/o. Rajapet, Nalgonda District.
. PETITIONER AND
1 Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, rep by its Registrar.
2 Arora Engineer college, Bhongir, Nalgonda District, Rep by its Principal . RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not allowing the petitioner to attend classes for the second the semester of final B.Tech (I.T.) Engineering course as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to permit the petitioner to attend for classes for the second semester of final B.Tech (I.T.) Engineering course, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. J.UGRANARASIMHA Counsel for the Respondents: MR. K.RATHANGA PANI REDDY In WRIT PETITION NO : 7460 of 2009 Between:
Thummala Rakesh Raj S/o. T. Nooka Raju R/o. Telugu Musalaiah Colony, Arasavalli Junction, Srikakulam.
. PETITIONER AND
1 The Principal, G.M.R. Institute of Technology, Rajam, Srikakulam District.
2 The Registrar, Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Kakinada.
3 The Vice Chancellor, Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Kakinada.
. RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not issuing Hall ticket to petitioner by permitting petitioner to appear for the examination of 2nd Semester of III vide Hall Ticket No.06431 A-0462 for writing the examinations of 2nd semester of III year B.Tech examination on the ground the shortage of attendance is 3% to that of 65% calculation of attendance by the 1st respondent is wrong, not providing any opportunity for explaining the absence is in the nature of arbitrary, illegal, unjust and violative of Natural Justice.
Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents : MR. K.RATHANGA PANI REDDY In WRIT PETITION NO : 11142 of 2009 Between:
Katta Sushant Kumar, S/o. Sunil, R/o. Flat NO. 307, Sri Chakra Apartments, Ahmed Nagar, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, PIN - 500 028.
. PETITIONER AND
1 The Registrar, JNTU, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.
2 The Controller of Examinations, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.
3 The Principal, Mahavir, Science and Technology, Keshavagiri, Banglaguda, Ranga Reddy District.
. RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order, Direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned action of the Respondents in not permitting the petitioner to appear for the B.Tech(Mechanical) 1st year Final Examination conducted by the university of 1st & 2nd Respondents, from 04-06-2009 to 19-06-2009 it is a grave injustice against the Article 14, Constitution of India and against the principal of Natural Justice and consequently direct the Respondent Authorities herein to permit the petitioner to appear for the B.Tech (Mechanical) 1st Year Examination.
Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. JOGRAM TEJAVAT Counsel for the Respondents : MR. K.RATHANGA PANI REDDY
AND
IN WRIT PETITION NO : 7932 of 2009
Between:
R. Deepak Raj S/o. Late R. Kashinath R/o. 5-5-172, Kammarivada, Hanmakonda, Warangal.
. PETITIONER AND
1 The Jawaharlal Nehru Technology University Rep. by Vice Chancellor Kukatpally, Hyderabad.
2 The Jawaharlal Nehru Technology University Rep. by its Controller of Examination Kukatpally, Hyderabad.
3 The Balaji Institute of Technology & Science Rep. by its Principal Laknepally, Narasampet, Warangal.
. RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a suitable writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the highhanded action of the Respondents in not accepting the examination fee from the petitioner for 3/2 semester of B. Tech Examination and thereby not permitting him to Write the said examination which is proposed to be commenced from 27- 04-2009 as illegal, arbitrary and Article 14 and 16 Constitution of India and direct the Respondents to accept the examination fee from the Petitioner for 3/2 semester of B.Tech examination and consequently permit him to appear for 3/2 semester examinations commencing from 27- 04-2009.
Counsel for the Petitioner : SMT. S.A.V.RATNAM Counsel for the Respondents : MR. K.RATHANGA PANI REDDY The Court made the following Common Order:
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI
WRIT PETITION NOs.24114, 24376, 24406, 24444, 24481, 24501,
24505, 24632 & 29166 OF 2008 AND
WRIT PETITION Nos.7460, 11142 & 7932 OF 2009
COMMON ORDER :
The petitioners in these writ petitions are the students of Engineering Course in different colleges affiliated to Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University and all the writ petitions are filed aggrieved by the action of the University in not permitting the petitioners to appear for the examinations on the ground of shortage of attendance. Since all the petitioners are similarly situated and a common question of law arises for consideration, these writ petitions are heard together and decided by this common order.
Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (for short, ‘JNTU’) is established and incorporated in the State of Andhra Pradesh under Section 3 of Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Act, 1972 (for short, ‘the Act’).
In exercise of the powers conferred under paragraph-7(d) of Part-II of the Schedule to the Act, the Academic Senate of the University made Academic Regulations. Section 6 of the said Regulations which deals with the attendance runs as under :
“6. Attendance:
(i) A student has to put in a minimum of 75% of attendance in aggregate of all the subjects for acquiring credits in the I year and / or each semester thereafter.
(ii) Condonation of shortage of attendance in aggregate upto 10% (65% and above and below 75%) in each semester of I year may be granted by the College Academic Committee.
(iii) A student will not be promoted to the next semester unless he satisfies the attendance requirement of the present semester / I year.
(iv) Shortage of Attendance below 65% in aggregate shall in no case be condoned.
( v ) Students whose shortage of attendance is not condoned in any semester / I year are not eligible to take their end examination of that class and their registration shall stand cancelled. They may seek re-admission for that semester / I year when offered next.
(vi) Condonation of shortage of attendance as stipulated in 6(ii) above shall be granted on genuine and valid grounds with supporting evidence.
(vii) A stipulated fee shall be payable towards condonation of shortage of attendance.”
A plain reading of the above provision shows that it is mandatory for every student to put in a minimum of 75% attendance in I year or each semester thereafter. However, shortage of attendance in aggregate upto 10% i.e., 65% and above and below 75% in each semester or I year, may be condoned by the College Academic Committee. As per Section 6 (iv), shortage of attendance below 65% in aggregate shall not be condoned in any case. Section 6 (iii) further mandates that a student will not be promoted to the next semester unless he satisfies the requirement of attendance of the present semester / I year.
The validity of the above said Regulation relating to Attendance was questioned before this Court in W.P.Nos.8720 & 9071 of 2004 on various grounds. After hearing both the parties by an elaborate order dated 30.11.2004 this Court upheld the validity of Section 6 of the Academic Regulations.
In K. PRADEEP v. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL
[1]
UNIVERSITY a Division Bench of this Court while observing that attending the college as prescribed by the University is an essential element of education held that no Mandamus can be issued compelling either the University or the College to condone the shortage of attendance beyond the limit prescribed in the Academic Regulations. Similar view was taken by another Division Bench in M. SUNIL CHAKRAVARTHY v. PRINCIPAL, SREEKALAHASTEESWARA INSTITUTE OF
[2]
TECHNOLOGY . In a recent decision in B. YUGANDHAR v.
PRINCIPAL, KUPPAM ENGINEERING COLLEGE[3] the said question again fell for consideration and after reviewing all the decided cases, it was reiterated by the Division Bench that the Court cannot issue a judicial fiat to the college to admit the appellant to the examinations thereby violating the mandate of the Academic Regulations.
Having regard to the well-settled law noticed above, it is clear that shortage of attendance below 65% cannot be condoned in any circumstances. It is also clear that the discretion conferred on the College Academic Committee under Section 6 (ii) of the Regulations to condone the shortage of attendance upto 10% in each semester has to be exercised judiciously in genuine cases where valid grounds, supported with evidence, were made out.
I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record.
The attendance of the petitioners in all these writ petitions in the respective semesters was less than 65%. Though the said fact could not be disputed, it is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the University ought to have considered the aggregate attendance of whole academic year instead of a particular semester. It is further contended that disqualifying a student not only for the particular semester but also for the next semester on the ground of shortage of attendance is arbitrary and illegal. In support of the said submission, the learned Counsel relied upon a decision of this Court in P. RAGHU VAMSHI v. VICE-
CHANCELLOR, JNTU, R.R. DISTRICT
[4]
.
As noticed above, Section 6 of the Academic Regulations relating to attendance was already upheld by this Court. Section 6 in unambiguous terms requires that the attendance of each semester has to be taken into consideration and the petitioners are well aware of the same at the time of taking admission to the course. Section 6 (iii) made it very clear that the student will not be promoted to the next semester unless he satisfies the required attendance of the preset semester. Hence the contention of the petitioners that the aggregate attendance of the academic year shall be taken into consideration is untenable and cannot be accepted. In P. RAGHU VAMSHI’S case (4 supra) this Court never declared that a student who has 50% attendance shall be permitted to appear for examination of that semester as contended on behalf of the petitioner. In the said decision this Court had only directed the University to consider the feasibility. Accordingly, a High Level Committee was appointed by the University and the said Committee, after due deliberations, opined that the Academic Regulations as prescribed shall not be deviated or diluted in any manner in the larger interest of maintaining the standards in technical education, observing as under :
“Engineering education is a sequential form of education in which, subjects are taught such that understanding certain basic subjects is essential for further continuation of studies. A student is expected to have the minimum basic concepts about a subject by attending at least 65% of the classes in that subject, for that semester, at the least minimum level. A student having attendance less than this is not expected to have the knowledge about that subject and will not be able to understand the other subjects in the subsequent semesters, due to the sequential nature of academic curriculum. A student may not be able to successfully complete the program or may have very poor knowledge about his field of engineering. As such the standards in technical education will fall miserably, if the minimum attendance requirements are not enforced. To enable the students to learn about a subject through a formal teaching - learning process, in a class room, academic Senate consisting of Senior Professors, Academicians and Administrators from reputed colleges and Universities frame the academic regulations.”
Since the petitioners in all these writ petitions had less than 65% of attendance in aggregate in the respective semesters, there is no question of considering their cases for condonation of delay under Section 6 (ii) of the Academic Regulations by the College Academic Committee. Even assuming that the petitioners could not attend the classes for genuine reasons, as their attendance was less than 65%, they are not eligible for promotion to the next semester. Hence the impugned action of the respondents in not permitting them to appear for the examinations cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal.
The law is well-settled that no Mandamus can be issued compelling the statutory authority to act disregarding the law. In identical circumstances, the Supreme Court in A.K. THAKUR v. UNIVERSITY OF
[5]
HIMACHAL PRADESH held that the University cannot be compelled to allow the petitioners therein to appear for the examinations by condoning the shortage of attendance since the same was beyond its legal competence to do.
For the aforesaid reasons, the relief as prayed for cannot be granted and accordingly all the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs.
G. ROHINI, J.
Dt. 30.06.2009 gbs
[1] 2002 (3) ALT 794 (D.B.)
[2] 2005 (2) ALT 184 (D.B.)
[3] 2008 (2) ALT 529 (D.B.)
[4] 2006 (1) ALD 294
[5] (1973) 2 Supreme Court Cases 298