Telangana High Court
Geethanjali College Of Engineering And ... vs S. Kondaparthi Manvitha on 6 August, 2025
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN
WRIT APPEAL No.843 of 2025
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri R.Sushanth Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellants. Also heard Sri T.Srikanth Reddy, learned
counsel for respondent No.1; Sri M.Vamshi Kiran Yadav,
learned Assistant Government Pleader for Higher
Education Department, appearing for respondent No.2;
and Sri Peri Prabhakar, learned Standing Counsel for the
Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, appearing for
respondent No.3.
2. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated
29.07.2025 passed in W.P.No.16472 of 2025, whereby the
learned writ court has allowed the writ petition filed by
respondent No.1 herein (hereinafter referred to as, "the writ
petitioner").
3. The writ petitioner is a student of Bachelor of
Technology in Computer Science and Engineering (B.Tech
(CSE)) III Year in the appellants' college (who are
respondent Nos.3 to 5 in the writ petition). She could not
secure the minimum 65% attendance in the II Semester of
B.Tech III Year, as she had to undergo surgery of "Right
Uniportal Vats Bullectomy and Mechanical Pleurodesis" on
10.02.2025 and was advised rest for a period of three
weeks. She was again admitted in Yashoda Hospital on
13.03.2025 due to failure of the earlier surgery and a
procedure of "Post Malecot Insertion, ICD Insertion, Talc
Pleurodesis" was performed successfully. She was
discharged on 26.03.2025 and advised rest for a period of
six weeks for the inside wounds to heal. She resumed
attending the classes from 10.04.2025 and submitted the
leave application to appellant No.1. The writ petitioner was
also amongst the five other students who were detained in
the academic year for shortage of attendance. She was
having 49.33% of attendance instead of 65% to 75% as per
the regulations of the JNTUH University College of
Engineering, Science and Technology, Hyderabad
(Autonomous) (hereinafter referred to as, "the University").
On being detained from appearing in B.Tech (CSE) III Year
II Semester examination, she filed the writ petition seeking
a direction to the appellants to permit her to appear for
B.Tech (CSE) III Year II Semester examinations and also to
complete the B.Tech (CSE) course without detaining her on
the ground of shortage of attendance. By an interim order
dated 16.06.2025, the learned writ court permitted her to
attend the B.Tech (CSE) III Year II Semester Lab
Examinations as well as to appear for the Semester
examinations. However, in the B.Tech IV Year I Semester,
she was not allowed to attend the classes. In this
background, the learned writ court, by the impugned
judgment, held as under:
"21. There is no dispute with regard to ill-health of the
petitioner during the B.Tech-III Year, II Semester. The
petitioner is not having any backlogs or shortage of
attendance during the previous Semesters and the
problem arose only when the petitioner fell sick during
the III Year, II Semester. Admittedly, there is no detention
even if a student fails to secure minimum marks in the
examinations. If a student attended classes, but failed in
some or all subjects, he/she can be automatically
promoted to the next semester. It clearly shows that the
regulations of the respondent authorities are only taken
into account of percentage of attendance and not with
regard to qualifying marks for promoting to next
semester. If the respondents wants to quality of
education, they have to consider not only attendance of
the students but also merit. In the instant case there is
no dispute that the petitioner has no backlogs for
previous examinations.
22. In view of the circumstances, the respondents
authorities' have to consider the case of the petitioner on
merit, medical and humanitarian grounds and permit the
petitioner to complete B.Tech Course. In the light of the
above discussion, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
23. In view of the above findings, the writ petition is
allowed and the Impugned Circular dated 12.06.2025
issued by the respondent No.5 is set aside in so far as the
petitioner is concerned and the respondent authorities
are directed to publish B.Tech-III, II-Semester
examinations results of the petitioner and also permit the
petitioner to complete the Course of B.Tech, Computer
Science and Engineering (CSE) without any interruption."
Being aggrieved, the appellants are in appeal.
4. The relevant regulations of the University are quoted
as under:
"6.0 Attendance requirements:
6.1 A student is eligible to appear for the Semester End
Examinations if the student acquires a minimum of
75% of attendance in aggregate of all the
subjects/courses (including mandatory or non-
credit courses) in that semester. Two periods of
attendance for each theory subject shall be given, if
the student appears in the mid-term examination.
6.2 Shortage of attendance up to 10% (65% and above,
and below 75%) can be condoned in each semester
by the College Academic Committee on genuine and
valid grounds (considering the days of attendance in
sports, games, NCC and NSS activities and days of
absence due to medical reasons) based on the
student's representation with supporting evidence.
6.3 A stipulated fee is levied on students whose
shortage of attendance is condoned.
6.4 Shortage of attendance below 65% in aggregate shall
in no case be condoned.
6.5 Students whose shortage of attendance is not
condoned in a semester are not eligible to appear for
Semester End Examinations of the semester; they
shall be detained and their registration for that
semester shall stand cancelled. They will not be
promoted to the next semester. Furthermore, marks
earned in CIE of the subjects in detained semester
become void, and henceforth the subjects are not
graded, and SGPA and CGPA are not calculated.
They may seek re-registration for all the subjects
registered in that semester in which the student got
detained, by seeking readmission for the semester
as and when offered; in case if there are any
Professional Electives and/or Open Electives, the
same may also be re-registered if offered, however, if
those electives are not offered in later semesters,
then alternative electives may be chosen from the
same set of elective subjects offered under that
category.
6.6. However, a student fulfilling the attendance
requirement in a semester is not eligible for
readmission into the same.
6.7 When a student is detained due to shortage of
attendance in any semester, he may be readmitted
into that semester, as and when offered, with the
academic regulations of the batch into which he
gets readmitted to."
5. These regulations framed by the University are
known as Academic Regulations (R22) for B.Tech (Regular)
Programme. A mere perusal of the regulation on
attendance requirement would show that shortage of
attendance up to 10% i.e., 65% and above and below 75%,
can be condoned in each semester by the College Academic
Committee on genuine and valid grounds (considering the
days of attendance in sports, games, NCC and NSS
activities and days of absence due to medical reasons)
based on the student's representation with supporting
evidence. A fee has to be levied on students whose
shortage of attendance is condoned. As per regulation 6.4,
shortage of attendance below 65% in aggregate shall in no
case be condoned. The learned writ court was, however,
persuaded by the fact that the writ petitioner did not have
any backlogs or shortage of attendance during the previous
Semesters. It observed that there is no detention even if a
student fails to secure minimum marks in the
examinations. If a student attended classes, but failed in
some or all subjects, he/she can be automatically
promoted to the next Semester. The learned writ court was,
therefore, of the view that the regulations only take into
account the percentage of attendance and not the
qualifying marks for promoting to next Semester. If the
appellants want the quality in education, they have to
consider not only attendance of the students but also
merit. The learned writ court, therefore, opined that the
appellants should consider the case of the writ petitioner
on merit, medical and humanitarian grounds and permit
her to complete the B.Tech (CSE) Course. The writ petition
was accordingly allowed and the circular dated 12.06.2025
by which the writ petitioner was detained from appearing
in the examination was set aside.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants and the University
both submit that the University regulations do not permit
any such exception in such circumstances. The learned
writ court, therefore, fell in error in carving out an
exception when the rule or regulation does not itself
provide therefor.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants has also
submitted that the decision of the learned Single Judge of
the High Court of Andhra Pradesh relied upon by the
learned writ court in the case of B.V.K.Koushik v. State of
Andhra Pradesh 1 has been set aside by the Division Bench
of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.Nos.697 and
698 of 2025 vide judgment dated 30.06.2025, which,
however, could not be brought to the notice of the learned
writ court. Learned counsel for the appellants also sought
to distinguish the decisions relied upon by the learned writ
court in the case of Tripurari Kumar Jha v. Faculty of
2025 SCC OnLine AP 2460
Law, University of Delhi 2 and in the case of Bamang
Nabam v. North Eastern Hill University 3. The learned
writ court has sought to erroneously distinguish the
judgments rendered in the case of K.Pradeep v.
Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad 4
and G.Sumanth Reddy v. Jawaharlal Nehru
Technological University (W.P.No.16658 of 2023 of the
High Court for the State of Telangana dated 03.07.2023).
It is submitted that if the judgment of the learned writ
court is not set aside, it would send a wrong signal to the
large number of students who are the students of the
University and the College in question. As per the
applicable regulation, such a student has to attend the
classes for the Semester with the junior batch. In the case
of the writ petitioner, she shall be readmitted in the II
Semester of the III Year B.Tech (CSE) course of the junior
batch starting from January, 2026. Learned counsel for
the appellants submitted that since the regulations do not
permit any exception on any such grounds, including
2024 SCC OnLine Del 4220
2025 SCC OnLine Megh 399
2002 SCC OnLine AP 396
medical or humanitarian grounds, the learned writ court
fell in error in carving out an exception to allow the writ
petitioner to undertake the examination and continue with
B.Tech (CSE) IV Year I Semester course. Therefore, the
impugned judgment may be set aside.
8. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has
supported the impugned judgment. He has relied upon the
decision of the High Court of Delhi in Tripurari Kumar
Jha (supra) and the decision of the High Court of
Meghalaya in Bamang Nabam (supra). He has also drawn
the attention of the Court to the exceptional medical
emergency that the writ petitioner had to suffer. He
submitted that the writ petitioner had to undergo surgery
repeatedly to cure the disease with which she was
suffering. It is further submitted that the writ petitioner
has successfully qualified all previous Semester
examinations without any shortfall of attendance. If the
writ petitioner is not allowed to continue with the regular
course of B.Tech (CSE) IV Year, she would lose one year of
her career. Therefore, the impugned judgment may not be
interfered with.
9. We have given anxious consideration to the
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. We
have also taken note of the applicable regulations of the
University and the decisions relied upon by the learned
counsel for the rival parties.
10. We may, at the outset, observe that the regulations
have been framed by the University under the University
Statute for conduct of B.Tech (Regular) Programme. The
course itself is of a technical nature. The University
regulations do not permit any exception in case of shortage
of attendance below 65% on any grounds whatsoever. In
such cases, the Court exercising judicial review has its own
limitations. Unless the law or the regulation governing the
case of the parties permits any exceptions, it is not open
for the writ court in judicial review to rewrite the
regulations carving out exceptions of any such nature.
Regulation 6.4 of the regulations framed by the University
in very clear terms prescribes that shortage of attendance
below 65% in aggregate shall in no case be condoned.
Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has relied upon the
decision in the case of Bamang Nabam (supra) rendered by
the High Court of Meghalaya. Upon perusal of the
judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court
of Meghalaya in the said case, we find that Rule 12 of the
Rules of Legal Education, 2008, which was in question,
also did not permit any exceptional reason to condone the
shortage of attendance below 65%. The learned Division
Bench, however, was of the view that the above Rule does
cover only normal circumstances, but does not account for
extraordinary circumstances like illness or bereavement in
a student's family, natural disaster, riot strife, political
upheavals, other acts of God etc. However, we are of the
view, if the rules or regulations like in the present case do
not contemplate any exceptions to condone the shortage of
65% of attendance, it is not open for the writ court, in
exercise of powers of judicial review, to create an exception
by rewriting the regulation. As observed hereinabove, the
instant course is a technical course after passing of which
the students become engineering graduates. It involves lab
experience and also theoretical classes which, in the
wisdom of the University, require minimum attendance of
at least 65% and not below that. The case of Tripurari
Kumar Jha (supra) also is distinguishable on the same
grounds. In the said case, the High Court of Delhi was of
the view that the short-attendance issue can be dealt with
by having students connected to classrooms via video-
conferencing mode or having the lectures uploaded on
Youtube. Law course is not a technical course where lab
experience is required. However, in the instant case, since
the regulations framed by the University do not permit for
fulfilling the shortfall by attending the classes through
video-conferencing mode or having the lectures uploaded
on Youtube, the question of applying such use of
technology to fulfil the shortfall de hors the rules would not
arise.
11. In such circumstances and for the reasons recorded
hereinabove, we are of the view that the learned writ court
fell in error in interfering in the matter and allowing the
writ petitioner to continue with the regular course of
B.Tech (CSE) IV Year I Semester treating her to be a
successful candidate in the examinations of the II Semester
of B.Tech (CSE) III Year course which she could appear
only because of the interim order passed by the learned
writ court. The regulations framed by the University
permit such a student to join the next batch of the B.Tech
course in the same Semester i.e., II Semester of B.Tech
(CSE) III Year, which would, in the case of the writ
petitioner, commence from January 2026.
12. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
writ petitioner, if she is interested, shall also be readmitted
to the II Semester of the III Year B.Tech (CSE) course with
the junior batch commencing from January 2026.
13. Therefore, it appears to us that the applicable
regulations and the stand of the appellants and the
University take care of the situation in which the writ
petitioner has fallen because of unfortunate medical
reasons. She may, of course, lose a year, but she will, in
our earnest hope, definitely come out with flying colours in
the succeeding batch of B.Tech (CSE) course.
14. With the above observations, the instant writ appeal
is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
______________________________________
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ
______________________________________
G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J
06.08.2025
vs
