Muzaffar Mohd. Khan Salman Vs Kakatiya University

Andhra Pradesh High Court 6 Jun 2014 WP No. 15500 of 2014 (2015) 1 ALD 170 : (2015) 3 ALT 513
Bench: Single Bench

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

WP No. 15500 of 2014

Hon'ble Bench

A. Rajasekhar Reddy, J

Advocates

Mirza Nisar Ahmed Baig, Counsel, Advocate for the Appellant; Deepak Bhattacharjee, Counsel, Advocate for the Respondent

Judgement Text

Translate:

@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER

A. Rajasheker Reddy, J.@mdashThe writ petition is filed for mandamus declaring the Letter No. KITS/Acad/2014/99, dated 22.4.2014, issued

by the respondents, debarring the petitioner from writing I year B.Tech Examinations, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to set aside the

same and for a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear for the University examination. The case of the petitioner is that he

was admitted into 4th respondent College in the year 2012 in B.Tech (Mech.) course and he could not attend the classes for that year and again he

was readmitted into the College vide proceedings dated 5.11.2013. Petitioner has been suffering from low blood platelets and various other health

problems for the last two years and underwent treatment at SVR Multi Speciality Hospital. While so, respondents announced the dates of

examination for the I year B.Tech and petitioner paid requisite fee and completed other formalities. But, the 4th respondent issued impugned letter

dated 22.4.2014, debarring the petitioner from writing University examinations for want of requisite attendance. The case of the petitioner is that he

is having good academic record from Matriculation onwards and only due to ill-health he could not secure requisite minimum percentage of

attendance. It is also the case of the petitioner that he met respondent authorities and filed representation on 31.5.2014, stating the above facts, but

no orders are passed. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner is suffering from serious ailments, his case may be considered sympathetically

and shortage of attendance may be condoned and he may be permitted to write examinations. He further submits that the authorities have not

considered his request and rejected his request of condoning shortage of minimum percentage of attendance vide proceedings dated 31.5.2014.

3. Learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 submits that as per regulations the candidate should secure 75% attendance and 10% of

attendance is only condonable on medical grounds, not beyond that. In the present case the 4th respondent has passed impugned order rejecting

the request of the petitioner for condoning the shortage of attendance, stating that petitioner cannot be permitted to write examinations for want of

requisite attendance.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for respondents also relied on the judgment in B. Yugandhar Vs. Principal, Kuppam Engineering College and

Another, , wherein this Court held that no mandamus can be issued violating the mandate of academic regulations, on a plea of sympathy when a

candidate does not fulfil the required minimum percentage of attendance.

5. In view of the above and relying on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court (supra), no relief can be granted.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in the writ petition,

shall stand closed.

From The Blog
SC: Brother Can Sell Father’s House Even Without Share
Oct
31
2025

Story

SC: Brother Can Sell Father’s House Even Without Share
Read More
SC to Decide If Women Can Face POCSO Penetrative Assault
Oct
31
2025

Story

SC to Decide If Women Can Face POCSO Penetrative Assault
Read More