KRISHNA DUTT RATHOD Vs. REGISTRAR JNTU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner joined First Year B.Tech (E.E.E.) Course in the 2nd respondent - College in September, 2002. He attended the classes till January 2003. During Sankranti vacation, he went to his native place where it appears that he suffered with Jaundice and he took treatment till the end of March 2003. By reason of this, he could not attend to classes as required. Therefore, he did not put in the required percentage of attendance. On 30-3-2003, he approached the second respondent for payment of examination fee but the same was refused. He was informed by the 2nd respondent that due to shortage of attendance he cannot be permitted to attend the final examination of First Year B. Tech., Course scheduled to commence on 21.4.2003. Therefore, he filed the present writ petition for a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to accept the examination fee and to permit him to appear for the final examination of First Year B. Tech. (E.E.E.) Course. Regulation 5 of the Revised Academic Regulations for B. Tech (Regular) Four Year Degree Course reads as under:

(2.) It is not denied before this Court that the petitioner has not even put in 65% of attendance. It is however contended that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case notwithstanding the law declared by the Supreme Court in MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY v. DR ANTO JOSEPH as well as the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in K. PRADEEP v. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS, the petitioner's case may be considered as he did not on his own volition absent from attending the classes.

(3.) It is well settled that the Regulations for a course have to be strictly interpreted. This is especially in relation to attendance. Regulation 5 requires 75% attendance and empowers condonation of shortage of attendance by the College Academic Committee in aggregate up to 10%. In other words, a student who has put in minimum of 65% of attendance on a proper application being made and paying the necessary fee can be allowed for sitting the examinations. If the attendance falls below 65%, no such indulgence can be shown. When the statutory power does not empower condonation, any writ of Mandamus directing the authorities to permit the petitioner to appear for examination not withstanding the fact that he did not put in minimum 65% would amount to issuance of Mandamus contrary to law. It also amounts to directing the authorities to act contrary to law. Such a writ cannot be issued (See Brij Mohan Parihar v. M.P.S.R.T.C., LIC of India v. Asha Ramachandra Ambedkar and M/s. Sri Narasimha Wines v. The Prohibition & Excise Superintendent).