K PRADEEP Vs. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Smt. G. Jyothi Eswar, the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri C. Kodandaram the learned Standing Counsel for the Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University-1st respondent and Sri V.T.M. Prasad the learned Standing Counsel for SCR Engineering College-2nd respondent. This appeal is directed against the order passed by R. Ramanujam, }. in Writ Petition No.24410 of 2001, dated 28-11-2001, on the ground that the appellant had not put in required attendance and, therefore, no positive direction could be issued to the respondents to permit him to appear for the examination.

(2.) The writ petition was filed by the appellant for a mandamus declaring the action of the SCR Engineering College in publishing the impugned circular dated 19-11-2001 detaining him from appearing for the first semester of III year B. Tech. examination without computing the attendance of the appellant in sports classes as illegal, arbitrary and capricious. The appellant was studying in the III year B.Tch. in 2nd respondent-college. Aggrieved by the action of the 2nd respondent in detaining him vide memo dated 19-11-2001 for want of requisite attendance the appellant filed the writ petition. Before the learned single Judge it was argued that the appellant had put in 64% of attendance and thus the shortfall was only 1% and if the attendance in sports classes was taken into account there would be no deficiency. The learned Judge directed the learned counsel for the appellant to place before him any rule or regulation authorizing the college to take into account the attendance put in by a student in sports classes. However, the learned counsel for the appellant frankly submitted before the learned single Judge that there is no such rule. Therefore, in the absence of any such rule, which authorizes the college or the University to take into account the attendance put in by a student in sports classes the learned Judge was of the view that no positive direction can be issued to the respondents to permit the appellant to appear for the examination. Aggrieved by the said order the present appeal has been preferred.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the submissions made in the writ petition and also further requested that this Court should take a lenient view considering the facts and circumstances of the case and that the shortage is only 1% and, therefore, this Court should issue a direction to the college in question to condone the same and permit the appellant to appear for the semester in question. We are unable to countenance the said submission. Though it is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that sports classes are also included in the course and therefore the action of the respondents in not including the attendance in the said classes is illegal and arbitrary, the said submission cannot be countenanced for want of any proof. The appellant submitted a representation to the authorities on 28-11-2001 stating that he was unable to attend the classes regularly due to ill-health and consequently the attendance fell short of 65% and that though he attended the sports classes the same was not included while computing his attendance. The said representation was made pursuant to the direction issued by the learned single Judge. The 2nd respondent considered the said representation and passed an order by its proceedings dated 29-11-2001 which reads as follows: Mr. K. Pradeep, B.Tech Third year, CSE student is informed that after taking into consideration of (1) the instructions issued in W.P. No.24410 of 2001 dated 28-11-01 of Hon'ble High Court, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (2) the representation of the candidate (Mr. K. Pradeep) and (3) the report of the Three Man Committee which was constituted to verify his attendance particulars, his representation to permit him to appear for B.Tech CSE third year - first semester cannot be allowed since he put in only 64% attendance against the stipulated attendance of 65% as per J.N.T.U. norms.