APHC010552232024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY, THE SIXTH

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA

WRIT PETITION NO

W.P.No.28673 of 2024

Between:

1. B.V.K KOUSHIK, S/O B

YEARS, R/O. FLAT NO. 4/3

COLONY, SRIKAKULAM

PRADESH.

(Amended as per the Order dated 06.05.2025 in

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL

SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION,

SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR

DISTRICT.

2. THE JAWAHAR LAI NEHRU TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY JNTU, REP.

BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR

DISTRICT.

3. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION, JAWAHAR LAI NEHRU

TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY (JNTU)

DISTRICT.

4. GMR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, REP.

NAGAR, RAJAM -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA

PRASAD

WRIT PETITION NOs: 28673 of 2024 & 424 of 2025

K KOUSHIK, S/O B.VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 20

, R/O. FLAT NO. 4/3, SRINIVASAM - 1, MADHURA NAGAR

, SRIKAKULAM TOWN AND DISTRICT - 532001. ANDHRA

the Order dated 06.05.2025 in I.A.No.01 of 2025

...PETITIONER

AND

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL

SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION,

SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR

LAI NEHRU TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY JNTU, REP.

BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR , KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI

THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION, JAWAHAR LAI NEHRU

TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY (JNTU) , KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI

GMR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL. GMR

532127, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

[3328]

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA

ESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 20

1, MADHURA NAGAR

532001. ANDHRA

I.A.No.01 of 2025)

...PETITIONER

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL

SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION,

SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR

LAI NEHRU TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY JNTU, REP.

, EAST GODAVARI

THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION, JAWAHAR LAI NEHRU

, EAST GODAVARI

BY ITS PRINCIPAL. GMR

DISTRICT, ANDHRA

2

PRADESH.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. RIZWAN ALI SHAIK

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. D.S. SIVADARSHAN

2. GP FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION

W.P.No. 424 of 2025

Between:

1. B.V.K KOUSHIK, S/O B.VENKAT ESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 20

YEARS, R/O. FLAT NO. 4/3, SRINIVASAM - 1, MADHURA NAGAR

COLONY, SRIKAKULAM TOWN AND DISTRICT - 532001. ANDHRA

PRADESH

(Amended as per the Order dated 06.05.2025 in I.A.No.02 of 2025)

...PETITIONER

AND

1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION SECRETARIAT

BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2. THE JAWAHAR LAI NEHRU TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY JNTU, REP.

BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR, VIZIANAGARAM.

3. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION, JAWAHAR LAI NEHRU

TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY (JNTU), VIZIANAGARAM.

4. GMR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL. GMR

NAGAR, RAJAM - 532127, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA

PRADESH.

...RESPONDENT(S):

3

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. RIZWAN ALI SHAIK

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. D.S. SIVADARSHAN

2. GP FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION

The Court made the following:

COMMON ORAL ORDER:

Heard Sri Shaik Rizwan Ali, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and

Sri D.S. Sivadarshan, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.4.

2. These two Writ Petitions raise similar questions and are related to each

other.

3. The Writ Petition No.28673 of 2024 is filed seeking the following relief:

“…pleased to issue a writ order or direction more

particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring

the action of the 4th respondent in not allowing the petitioner's

son by name B.V.K. Koushik to pay condonation fee as well as

the Examination fee on the ground that the petitioner's son is

having less percentage i.e., 7.5 percent of attendance to the

required percentage of 65 percent for attending the

examinations without considering the medical ground of the

petitioner's son as well as the application made by the

petitioner dated 10.11.2024 is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional

and against the principles of natural justice and consequently

direct the Respondents to receive the examination fee and

allow the petitioner's son to appear the 3

rd

semester (2

nd

year

1

st

semester) exams by duly considering medical grounds as

well as the application of the petitioner dated 30.11.2024 and to

pass…”

4. The Writ Petition No.424 of 2025 is also filed by the same person

seeking following relief:

“…pleased to issue a writ order or direction more

particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring

4

the action of the 4

th

respondent in not allowing the petitioners

son by name B.V.K. Koushik to continue further semesters

(after completion of 3rd semester) to complete the course i.e.,

Al and DS of Bachelor of Technology (B.Tech) in 4

th

respondent College without any valid reasons and also not

considering the future of the students (petitioners son) as well

as the application made by the petitioner for continuation and

to completion of further course i.e., Al and DS of Bachelor of

Technology (B.Tech) by the petitioners son is as illegal,

arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural

justice and consequently direct the Respondents to allow the

petitioners son to attend the further classes and to write the

examinations to complete the course i.e., Al and DS of

Bachelor of Technology (B.Tech) from the 4

th

respondent

college by duly considering petitioners son education/future of

the student as well as the application of the petitioner dated

30.01.2025 and to pass

5. Admittedly, Sri B.V.K. Koushik is a student studying B.tech Course in

Respondent No.4 - College. He is aged about 20 years. On the last hearing,

this Court has indicated that the father of the student is not entitled to file the

Writ Petitions, inasmuch as the aggrieved student himself is a major.

6. In this view of the matter, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has filed

I.A.No.1 of 2025 in W.P.No.28673 of 2024 and I.A.No.2 of 2025 in 424 of

2025 seeking amendment of the Cause tile and the Affidavit filed in support of

the Writ Petitions. Both the Interlocutory Applications are allowed today, vide

separate Proceedings. Registry is directed to make necessary changes in the

Cause Title in both the Writ Petitions by deleting the name of Sri

B.Venkateswara Rao (the father) and incorporating the name of the student-

Sri B.V.K. Koushik.

7. Henceforth, reference to the Writ Petitioner would mean the aggrieved

student by name Sri B.V.K. Koushik.

8. The Writ Petitioner is pursuing B.Tech Course in Respondent No.4 -

College. While he was pursuing the 3

rd

Semester, the Writ Petitioner fell ill in

two different spells. The Writ Petitioner could not attend the College between

5

19.08.2024 and 30.08.2024. He has submitted a Medical Certificate issued by

the Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Boddam (Rajam), Vizianagaram

District, dated 30.08.2024, indicating that the Petitioner is suffering from Acute

Gastroenteritis and Widal Fever. The Medical Officer has certified his fitness

from 30.08.2024 onwards.

9. The Writ Petitioner has again fallen ill and could not attend classes. The

Medical Certificate issued by the Medical Officer of Primary Health Center

would indicate that the Writ Petitioner had suffered from Typhoid Fever and

was absent and could not attend classes from 21.10.2024 to 31.10.2024. The

Doctor had certified the fitness of the Writ Petitioner from 30.10.2024

onwards. Both the Medical Certificates are placed on record in W.P.No.28673

of 2024 (Ex.P.2). Vide Order dated 06.12.2024, a learned Single Judge of this

Court, while following the identical directions passed in W.A.No.1001 of 2024

(arising out of W.P.No.27638 of 2024 and batch), had directed the

Respondents to receive the Examination Fee pending disposal of the Writ

Petition. The Respondents have received the Examination Fee and permitted

the Petitioner to appear in the Examination. After the declaration of result,

when the Petitioner has noticed that his result has not been declared on the

ground that there is no specific direction of this Court in W.P.No.28673 of

2024, the Writ Petitioner was constrained to file W.P.No.424 of 2025.

10. It is also stated by the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner that not

only the result has not been declared, but the Petitioner was also not

permitted to attend the classes for the 4

th

Semester.

11. My Predecessor, vide Order dated 07.01.2025, had directed to allow the

Writ Petitioner to attend the classes for the course of Artificial Intelligence and

Data Science (AI & DS) of Bachelor of Technology. The Writ Petitioner, as

such, is now attending the classes in compliance with the Interim Order

passed on 07.01.2025 (in W.P.No.424 of 2025).

6

12. Coming to the merits of this case, the facts relating to the Writ Petitioner

are already narrated hereinabove.

13. Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.4 - College has drawn

the attention of this Court to the Regulations filed along with Counter-Affidavit

in W.P.No.28673 of 2024. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the

Academic Regulation No.9 dealing with the attendance requirement. The

relevant portion of the Academic Regulation No.9 is usefully extracted

hereunder:

“ 9. Attendance Requirements:

If his/her academic progress and conduct have been satisfactory...

a. It is desirable for a candidate to put on 100% attendance in

all the subjects. However, a candidate shall be permitted to

appear for the semester end examination by maintaining at

least 75% of attendance on an average in all the courses in

that semester put together.

b. The shortage of attendance on medical grounds can be

condoned to an extent of 10% provided a medical certificate

is submitted to the Head of the Department when the

candidate reports back to the classes immediately after the

leave. Certificates submitted afterwards shall not be

entertained. Upon the payment of the Condonation fee as

fixed by the college, students who put on attendance

between ≥ 65% and <75% shall be permitted to appear for

the semester end examinations. Attendance may also be

condoned as per the State Government rules for those who

participate in sports, co-curricular and extra-curricular

activities provided their attendance is in the minimum

prescribed limits for the purpose and recommended by the

concerned authority.

c. In case of the students having overall attendance less than

65% after condonation shall be declared detained and has

to repeat semester again.”

14. Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.4 - College has drawn

the attention of this Court to Academic Regulation 9 (b) of the said Regulation

and would submit that even on the medical grounds, absence of the candidate

can be condoned only to the extent of 10% for the attendance. He would

submit that in view of this Regulation, the absence of the Petitioner on medical

7

ground would exceed the 10% mark of attendance and therefore the case of

the Writ Petitioner cannot be considered.

15. The Court has bestowed its consideration on the facts of the case as

well as the Academic Regulations, particularly Regulations 9(a), 9(b) & 9(c).

These are the regulations fixed by a Private Institution.

16. It is an admitted fact that the Petitioner had illness in two spells. Ones

between 19.08.2024 to 30.08.2024 on account of Acute Gastroenteritis and

Widal Fever (Typhoid Fever/Paratyphoid Fever). The second spell was

between 21.10.2024 to 31.10.2024 on account of Typhoid Fever. The cause

of illness is supported by the Medical Certificates issued by the Medical

Officer, Primary Health Centre, Boddam (Rajam), Vizianagaram District, dated

30.08.2024 (Both Certificates are marked as Ex.P.2). Along with the Medical

Certificates, the Petitioner has also placed on record the Diagnostic Reports

which indicate very clearly that there is no falsehood with regard to the claim

of illness made by the Writ Petitioner.

17. The Regulation 9 (b) would indicate that even on medical grounds, lack

of attendance can only be condoned to an extent of 10 % and not more than

that. Therefore, this Court is required to examine whether such Regulation

would stand to the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

18. It is a matter of common knowledge that sickness is beyond the human

control. A variety of sicknesses can impair the functioning of the human being,

thereby disabling the human being from attending to the normal duties. With

respect to the things which are beyond the control of a human being, no

specific Regulation can be issued, prescribing a limit for condonation of

absence beyond a particular percentage of attendance.

19. The present Regulation is not a Regulation which is prescribed by a

Public Institution, but it is a Regulation prescribed by the Private College,

which is Respondent No.4 - College, in the form of Academic Regulations.

8

20. On the face of it, the Regulation No.9 (b) is not only irrational but highly

arbitrary, inasmuch as no hard and fast rule can be laid with regard to the

absence of a student on medical ground.

21. It is admitted that instead of the prescribed 70% of the attendance, the

Petitioner has 51% as per the Counter-Affidavit filed by the Respondent No.4 -

College.

22. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, at this stage, has drawn the

attention of this Court to a Representation made by the father of the Writ

Petitioner (Ex.P.1) (in W.P.No.28673 of 2024) indicating that the College has

informed the father of the Writ Petitioner that the Writ Petitioner has 57.5%

attendance and the shortage is only 7.5% if 65% is taken as the minimum

attendance requirement.

23. The Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Patna, in All India

Students Federation vs. The State of Bihar & Others, reported in 2016

SCC OnLine Pat 7383, held that a Student cannot be mechanically made to

suffer penal consequences on the mere shortage of attendance below 75%.

The relevant portion of the Judgement is usefully extracted hereunder:

31. Thus, just because the attendance of a student has fallen

below the prescribed attendance of 75%, the penal consequences,

as mentioned in Regulation 5, will not automatically follow in the

event of a prayer made by the student citing the grounds for his

absence. The Principal or the Vice Chancellor, as the case may,

are duty bound to consider whether the lack of attendance was

deliberate and was in conscious disregard of norms of College. In

a case, when the absence from classes was not in defiance of the

Authority or a deliberate conduct on the part of the student, the

discretion to condone the attendance has to be, ordinarily,

exercised in favour of the student in view of the severe

consequences likely to follow if such discretion is not exercised.

32. A Teacher, let us bear in mind, faces the challenge of

shaping the career of students so that they can become useful

citizens of the Nation and, thus, contribute towards its

development. In view of the responsibility cast upon the Teacher,

whenever circumstances arises for taking punitive measures

against a student, he has to be very cautious in his approach,

because the punitive measures may ruin the career of his

9

students. It is in this backdrop that we propose to deal with this

case.

36. Though a dispute has been raised as to actual number of

students, who have been debarred from taking their examinations,

yet, irrespective of the stand taken by the respondents, as to the

actual number of students, who were prohibited from taking the

examinations, it would appear from the pleas taken by the Vice

Chancellor and the Principal that the reasons assigned by them

are omnibus in nature, for instance, inter alia, “in order to ensure

academic discipline, to complete curriculum within stipulated time

frame, for those students who fail to attend the minimum required

75% classes it necessarily implies that they are not seriously

undertaking his/her studies”. The grounds, so taken, particularly,

by the Vice Chancellor and the Principal are basically the objective

behind Regulation 4. It is with a view to achieve higher standards

of academic career that Regulation 4 provides for a minimum of

75% attendance. However, in no circumstances, it would mean

that those students, who fail to attend the minimum required 75%

classes, a necessary inference can or most be drawn that they are

not seriously undertaking their studies. Such an inference would

render the provisions of Regulation 5 otiose.

56. At the same time, we must also note the evolution of the

law on the writ of mandamus In the form of pronouncement of

Supreme Court, in Comptroller and Auditor General of

India v. K.S. Jagannathan ((1986) 2 SCC 679 : AIR 1987 SC 537),

wherein the Supreme Court, with respect to exercise of

discretionary powers by the authorities, held that though the High

Courts in India, exercising their Jurisdiction under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India, have the power to issue a writ

of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or to pass

orders and give necessary directions where the Government or a

public authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised the

discretion conferred upon it by a statute or a rule or a policy

decision of the Government or has exercised such discretion mala

fide or on irrelevant considerations or by ignoring the relevant

considerations and materials or, in such a manner as to frustrate

the object of conferring such discretion or the policy for

implementing which such discretion has been conferred. In all

such cases and in any other fit and proper case, a High Court can,

In the exercise of its jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the

nature of mandamus or pass orders and give directions to compel

the performance in a proper and lawful manner of the discretion

conferred upon the Government or a public authority, and, in a

proper case, in order to prevent injustice resulting to the

concerned parties, the Court may itself pass an order or give

directions, which the Government or the public authority should

10

have passed or given, had it properly and lawfully exercised its

discretion.

57. It is, therefore, not only permissible, but may become

necessary, in a given case, for the High Court to issue, by invoking

its extraordinary Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India, a direction to the authority concerned how to exercise its

discretion and/or the manner in which the discretion ought to have

been exercised. The relevant paragraph of Comptroller and

Auditor General of India (supra) is being reproduced as follows:

“19. There is thus no doubt that the High Courts in India exercising

their Jurisdiction under Article 226 have the power to issue a writ

of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or to pass

orders and give necessary directions where the Government or a

public authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised the

discretion conferred upon it by a statute or a rule or a policy

decision of the Government or has exercised such discretion mala

fide or on irrelevant considerations or by ignoring the relevant

considerations and materials or in such a manner as to frustrate

the object of conferring such discretion or the policy for

implementing which such discretion has been conferred. In all

such cases and in any other fit and proper case a High Court

can, In the exercise of its Jurisdiction under Article 226 issue

a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or

pass orders and give directions to compel the performance in

a proper and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon

the Government or a public authority, and in a proper case, in

order to prevent injustice resulting to the concerned parties,

the Court may itself pass an order or give directions which

the Government or the public authority should have passed

or given had it properly and lawfully exercised its discretion.”

58. The present case reveals an extremely sad approach of

educationists. In such an emergent case, as the one At hand -

when every moment is painful to pass - if the Court delays or

hesitates to step in and issue appropriate directions, the

consequences would be too disastrous inasmuch as it may

severely shake the confidence of the people in the ability of the

Courts to maintain rule of law and do justice. Hence, in view of the

fact that the announcement or publication of the result of the

examinees, who have already appeared in their respective

examination, has been stayed by this Court, any further delay may

cause immeasurable harm to the candidates, who have already

appeared as examinees in their respective examinations. We,

therefore, direct that the Principal, Patna Women's College, to

condone the attendance of all those students, who have

inadequate attendance to the extent of 70%. We also direct the

Vice Chancellor, Patna University, to condone the attendance of

those students, who have inadequate attendance up to 60%. All

these students be allowed to appear in their respective

11

examinations within a period of 15 days from today. The results of

the examination of the students, who have already appeared in

their respective examinations, be published and declared along

with the results of examinations of those students, whose

inadequate attendances have been directed to be condoned by

us. The entire result shall be declared within the scheduled date

so that the students do not suffer any further. Upon publication of

the results, the Vice-Chancellor of the Patna University and the

Principal, Patna Women's College, shall lay before this Court a

comprehensive report so as enable this Court to give such further

direction(s) as may be warranted by the facts and attending

circumstances of the present case.

24. In the light of the above decision, this Court is of the opinion that the

Writ Petitioner deserves indulgence from this Court.

25. There shall be a direction to Respondent No.4 - College to publish the

result of the 3

rd

Semester and also to permit the Writ Petitioner to continue to

attend the classes for the 4

th

Semester.

26. Needless to state that the Official Respondent Nos.1 to 3 as well as

the Respondent No.4 - College shall permit the Writ Petitioner to continue with

the course without any interruption, subject to compliance of the other

Regulations in the future.

27. Accordingly, both Writ Petitions stand allowed. No order as to costs.

28. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.

______________________________________

GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J

Dt: 06.05.2025

Note: Issue C.C. by 08.05.2025

B/o

DSV