I KRISHNAIAH Vs. PRINCIPAL COLLEGE OF VETERINARY SCIENCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner questions the issuance of theMemo dated 17-2-1997 by the 2nd respondent and prays to declare the impugned action of the respondents in issuing the same without considering the shortage of 5% attendance, as ordered by this Court in W.P.No. 13839 of 1996 dated 5-12-1996, as illegal and contrary to law.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner herein joined the 1st respondent-College to prosecute the course in B.V.Sc. Degree in the academic year 1989-90. He could not, however, appear for and get through the examinations regularly due to his bad financial position as, it is stated that, he hails from a poor family. It is stated that though he registered the course called 'VAN421' (Meat Animal Production) pertaining to the 2nd semester of the IV year along with the regular batch of 1991 students, he could not appear for the same. He, however, appeared for the said subject i.e., VAN 421 as a backlog and passed the final examination in April, 1996. It is further submitted that when the result was not declared, he approached the 1st Respondent who informed him that since there was shortage in attendance, his result could not be declared as per the Regulations. Thereafter, he approached this Court by filing W.P.No.13839 of 1996 and this Court by Judgment dated 5-12-1996 directed the respondents to give a show cause notice to the petitioner on the proposed action of cancellation of examination taken by him in VAN 421 and on receiving the explanation from the petitioner, the respondents were further directed to consider the same on humanitarian grounds for condonation of the shortage in attendance. Accordingly, a show- cause notice dated 2-1-1997 was issued to the petitioner, to which the petitioner gave his explanation on 4-1-1997. The said explanation was forwarded to the 2nd respondent-University for passing necessary orders. Thereafter, the 1st respondent issued a memo dated 12-2-1997 directing the petitioner to produce the practical record and observation note book pertaining to the course VAN 421, maintained by him during the 2nd semester of the year 1994-95. The petitioner sent a reply to the said memo stating that he had already submitted his practical record and observation note book to Dr. Gurdoji, his Advisor in the College. Subsequently, the impugned memo is issued stating that the petitioner obtained a grade of 4.97 (5.00) and as per U.G. Regulation 9.1(b), he shall be deemed to have failed in the course VAN 421. The petitioner was, therefore, advised to complete the said course as per Regulation 9.1(b).

(3.) Questioning the said memo, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the action of the respondents in not implementing the order of this Court passed in previous writ petition is illegal. He further contended that even though there is a specific direction to the respondents to consider the feasibility of condoning the shortage of 5% attendance, no steps were taken for condoning the shortfall in attendance. It is, therefore, contended that the respondents acted illegally.