MS. P. MOUNICA Vs. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF KNOWLEDGE TECHNOLOGIES, BASARA, ADIALABAD DISTRICT AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside letter, dated 08.08.2012, of respondent No. 3. The petitioner joined 6 -Year Integrated B.Tech., Program in Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge Technologies (RGUKT), Basara, Adilabad District in the year 2010. After completing her V Semester, she has entered VI Semester, which is an Introductory Semester for B.Tech., Engineering Course which commences from VII Semester. She was not permitted to pursue the B.Tech., Engineering Course from VII Semester onwards on the ground that in VI Semester, her attendance fell short of the prescribed attendance. She, has therefore, filed W.P.No. 22560 of 2012 in this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of by order, dated 25.07.2012, and the material portion of the said order is as re -produced below:

(2.) PURPORTING to consider the direction given in the above -mentioned order, respondent No. 3 passed the impugned order, wherein he has mentioned as follows:

(3.) AT the hearing, Sri P. Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the ground on which the petitioner was not allowed to pursue her B.Tech., I year (VII Semester) is contrary to the Rules and Regulations for the 6 -Year Integrated B.Tech., Program of RGUKT (for short 'the Regulations'). He has placed reliance on Regulation 4.3 of the Regulations and submitted that for a student to enter the Engineering part of the Under Graduate Programme (from VII Semester), he has to satisfy the twin requirements of obtaining a CGPA of 6.00 or more by the end of V Semester and must have passed all the subjects in I to V Semesters. The learned counsel further submitted that VI Semester is an optional one which pertains only to introductory session on completion of V Semester (PUC) and that the Regulations have not prescribed the attendance in the said Semester as compulsory. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that detention of the petitioner on the ground of her falling short of attendance is contrary to the Regulations and arbitrary.