Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
B Venkateswara Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 May, 2025
lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
(Specja] original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION Mos. OF 2024 AND 424 OF 2025
WRIT PETITION NO: 28673 OF 2024
Between:
B.V.K. Koushik, S/o. B. Venkateswara Rao, Aged about 20 years, R/o. FIat
No. 4/3, Srinivasam - 1, Madhura Nagar Colony, Srikakulam Town and District
-532001. Andhra Pradesh.
(Cause Title I-S amended jn writ petition and affidavit as per the courtJs
Order dated.o6.05.2025 vide order passed in l|A. No.1/2025)
H.PETITIONER
AND
1. The State ofAndhra Pradesh, Rep. by lots Principal Secretary
Department of Technical Education, Secretariat BuI'ldl-ngS, Velagapudi,
AmaravathI', Guntur District.
2. The Jawahar Lal' Nehru Technical University (JNTU), Rep. by its Vice
Chancellor, Kakinada, East Godavari District.
3. The Controller of Examination, Jawahar Lai Nehru Technical University
(JNTU), Kakinada, East Godavari DI'StriCt.
4. GMR Institute ofTechnology, Rep. by its Principal. GMR Nagar, Rajam
-532127, Srikakulam District, Andhra Pradesh.
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that I-n
the circumstances stated in th? affidavit fl-led therewith, the High Court may
be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the
nature of writ of mandamus, declarI~ng the action Of the 4th respondent in
not ailowjng the petitI-Oner'S SOn by name B.V.K. Koushik to pay
condonat]'on fee as well as the Examination fee on the ground that the
p9tit.iOner'S son iS having less percentage i.e., 7.50/o of attendance to the
required percentage of 65O/o for attending the examinations without
'co.nsidering the medical ground of the petitioner's son as well as the
-' I
I ¢
t.'\
I a`ppliCa'tion made by the petitioner dated 10.ll.2024 is Illegal, arbitrary,
-+, l^uhconstitutional 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 3rd semester (2nd year lst semester)
exams by duly considering medical grounds aS Well as the application of
the petitI'Oner dated 30.ll.2024.
lANO: 1 OF2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC ~praying that I'n the Circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in sulpport of the writ petition, the High Court
may be pleased to direct the Respondents to receive the 3rd semester
examination fee and allow the petitioners son to appear the 3rd semester
(2nd Year lst Semester) exams by duly considering medical grounds as well
as the application of the petitioner dated 30.ll.2024 pending disposal of
the main writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI RIZWAN All SHAIK
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR TECHNICAL
EDUCATION
-Counsel for the Respondent Mos.2 & 3 : SR[ I. MADHU BABU,
SC FOR JNTU
Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI D.S. SIVADARSHAN
WRIT PETITION NO: 424 OF 2025
Between:
B.V.K. Koushik, S/o. B. Venkateswara Rao, Aged about 20 years, R/o. FIat
No. 4/3, Srinivasam - 1, Madhura Nagar Colony, Srikakulam Town and District
-532001, Andhra Pradesh.
(Cause Tit:Ie js amended in writ petition and affidavit as per the courtJs
Order dated.06.05.2025 vide order passed in I|A. No.2/2025)
...PETITIONER
AND
1. The,'State ofAndhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary
Department of Technical Education Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi,
Amaravathi, Guntur DistrI-Ct.
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.
m.RESPONDENTS
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndI'a Praying that in
the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may
be 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 rlot
allowing the petitioner's son b'y name B.V.K. Koushik to continue further
semesters (after completion of.3rd semester) to complete the course i.e., AI
and DS of Bachelor of Technology (B.Tech) in 4th 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 petitioner's 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 Tedhnology (B.Tech) from the 4{h respondent
college by duly considering petitioner]s son education/future of the student
as well as the application of the-=petitioner dated 30.01.2025.
IANO: 1 OF2025
Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may
be pleased may be pleased to direct the Respondents to allow the
petitioners son to attend the further.classes and tO Write the examinations
`' -;
until completion of the course i.e|, AI and DS of Bachelor of Technology
(B.Tech) from the 4th respondent college by duly considering petitionerJs son
education/future of the student as well as the application of the petitioner
dated 30.12.2024 pending disposal of the main writ petition.
Counsel for the petitioner : SRI RIZWAN All SHAIK
Counsel for 1:he Respondent No.1. : GP FOR TECHNICAL
EDUcATION
Counsel for the Respondent Mos.2 & 3 : SRl I. MADHU BABU,
-`.I_ \
SC FOR JNTU
.-' i
Counsel for the Respondent Nd.4 : SRI D.S. SIVADARSHAN
The Court ,made the following: COMMON ORDER
APHCO10552232024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3328]
_--`
(SpecI'aI Original JurisdictI'On)
l`t-_
TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAIVIAKRISHNA
P RASAD
!4£B!lPETITIQD!b!Qs: 28673 of 2024 & 424 oi2Q2±
ELNoI28673 o12Q24
Between :
1.B.V.K KOUSHIK, S/O B.VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 20
YEARS, R/O. FLAT NO. 4/3, SRINIVASAM -1, MADHURA NAGAR
COLONY, SR'KAKULAM TOWN AND DISTRICT -532001. ANDHRA
PRADESH.
(Amended as per the order dated o6.05.2O25 in I.A.No.Ol of 2O25)
...PETITIONER
AND
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, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI
DISTRICT.
3.THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION, JAWAHAR LAI NEHRU
TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY (JNTU), KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI
DISTRICT.
4.GMR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL. GMR
NAGAR, RAJAM - 532127, SRIKAkULAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA
PRADESH. •S
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. RIZWAN All 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[VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED A'BOUT 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 06.05.2O25 in I.A.No.02 of 2025)
H.PETITIONER
AND
1.THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION SECRETARIAT
BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDl, AMARAVATHl, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2.THE JAWAHAR LAI NEHRU TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY JNTU, REP.
BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR, V'ZJANAGARAM.
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;\.|i:I_
Counsel for the Petitioner:
/*
1. RIZWAN All SHAIK
'\ \
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
>`.\
1. D.S. SIVADARSHAN
2.GP FOF3 TECHNICAL EDUCATION
The Court made the following:
COMMON ORAL ORDER:
Heard Sri Shaik Rizwan All, 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 questioms.and are related to each other.
3.` The Wr|lt Petition No.28673 of2024 is filed seeking the following relief.I i-...pleased to issue ? writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the act-IOn Of the 4th respondent in not allowing the petitioner's son by name B.V.K. Kdushik 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 exam-InatiOnS Without considering the medical ground of the petitioner's son as, well as the application made by the petitioner dated 10.ll.2024 is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondents to rece®lve the examination fee and allow the petitioner's son to appear the 3r.d semester -{Td year lst semester) exams by'duly considering medical grounds as well as the application of the petitioner dated 30.ll.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 the action of the 4th respondent in not allowing the petitioners son by name B.V.K. Koushik to continue further SemeSt=rS \;-I--a;;-" DS of ofBachelor (after-completion of -Technology 3rd semester) (B.Tech) in i.e:i,i tO complete i.h_e_CO.u`rS? 4:th respondent college without any Valid reasons and ?lSO nO:. cohsidering 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., AI and DS of Bach?I_pr of Technology (a.Tech) by the Petitioners SOn iS aS illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the Principles Of natur.al justice and consequently direct the Respondents to allow tPe petitioners son ±o attend the further classes and to Writ_e_the examinations to complete the course i,e., Al. and DS of Bachelor of Technology (B.Tech) from the 4th respondent college by duly considering PetitiOrlerS 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. ln this view Of the matter, learned Counsel for the Pe'titioner 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 lnterlocutory Applications are allowed today, v,'c/e 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 Sr®l B.V.K. Koushik.
8. The Writ Petitioner is pursuing B.l-ech Course in Respondent No.4 - college. while he was pursuing the 3rd Semester, the Writ Petit'loner fell ill in two d'lfferent spells. The Writ Petitioner could not attend the College between #, 19.O8.2024 and 30.08.2024. He has submitted a Medical Certificate issued by the Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Boddam (Rajam), Vizianagaram District, dat'ed 30.08.2024, indicatl'ng that the Petitioner is -suffering from Acute Gastroenteritis and widal Fever. The Medical Offllcer has certified his fI'tneSS from 30.08.2024 onwards.
9. The Writ Petitl'oner has again,fallen ill and could not attend classes. The Medical Cer'tificate issued by the MedI-Gal 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 21.1 O.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). V,'de Orde.`r 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 js 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 4th Semester.
ll. My Predecessor, v,'de Orderda±ed 07.01.2025, had directed to allowthe Writ Petitioner to attend the classes for the course of Artificial Intelligence and Data Science (Al & 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).
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 wit,h the attendance requirement. The relevant portion of the Academic Regulation No.9 is usefully extracted hereunder:
"9. Attendance Requirements:
If his/her academic brogress and conduct have been satisfactory... a. lt is desirable for a candidate to put on 100% attendance in all the subjects. However, a candidate shall be permitted to appear for i.he semester end examination by maintaining at ` least 75% bf 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 subm-Itted 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 ±o appear for the semester end examinations. Attendance may also be condoned as per the State Govemment rules for those who participate in sports, co-curricular and extra-curricular activities provided their attendance is -ln the minimum prescr-Ibed limits for the plJrPOSe 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 .b^.-
a. .i-` •'t'.f .&(`` ground would exceed the 10O/o mark of attendance and therefore the case of the Writ Petitioner cannot be consI'dered.
\
15. The Court has b6stowed 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. lt is an admitted fact that the petitionerhad illness jn two spells. ones between 19.08.2024 {o 30.08.2O24 on account of Acute Gastroenteritis and WidaI 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 t-he 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 eve-n on medical grounds, `lack of attendance can only be condoned to an extent of 10 O/o 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 thatsickness is beyond the human control. A variety of sicknesses can impair the functioning of the human being, thereby disa,bling 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 R6gulation 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.
20. On the face of it, the Regulation No.9 (b) is notonly 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 70O/a of the attendance, the Petitioner has 51 O/o as per the Counter-Affidavit filed by the Respondent No.4 - College.
22. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, at this stage,I 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 57.50/o attendance and the shortage is only 7.5O/o if 650/o is taken as the minimum , attendance requirement.
23. The Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Patna, in A// /nd,-a Students Federation vs. The State of Bihar & Others, reported -ln 2:016 SCC Online Pat 7383, held that a Student cannot be mechanically made to suffer-penal consequences on the mere shortage of attendance below 75O/o. The relevant portion of the Jljdgement is usefully extracted hereunder:
31. Thus, just because the attendance of a student has fallen below the prescribed aft?ndance of 75%, theo penal consequences, as mentioned in Regulation 5, will not autoinatically folldw in the ` event of a prayer made by the student cit®lng the grounds for his absence. The Pr-lnc'lpal or the Vice Chanceiror, a;the ;ase 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 pr a deliberate conduct on the_part of the student, the discretion to condone the attendance has to be, ord-Inarily, exercised in favour of the student in view of the severe consequences likely to follow if such d®lscretion 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, thLJS, contribute towards its development. ln 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 medsures may ruin the career of his 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 I-.\*| 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 disci,pline, to complete curriculum within st®lplJlated 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 Princ-IPal are basically the objective beh®lnd 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 io attend the minimum required 75% classes, a necessary inference can or most be drawn that they are not seriously undertaking their stLldieS. Such an inference would render the provisions of Regulation 5 otiose.
56. AI the same time, we must also note the evolution of the law on the writ ofmandamus ln the form of pronouncement Of Supreme Court, inComptroller and Auditor General of India v. K.S. Jagannathan ((1986) 2 SCC 679 : AIR 1987 SC 537), wherein the Supreme Court, with respect to exerc®ISe Of discretionary powers by the authorities, held that though the High Courts in India, exercising their Jurisdict-ion under Art®ICle 226 of the constitution of India, have the power to issue a Writ ofmandamusor a `writ in the nature ofmandamusor 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 exeroised such discretion mala tide 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 ctherfit and proper case, a High Court can, In the exerc®ISe 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 manrier of the discretio.n conferred upon-the Government `or a public authority, and, in a p.roper case, in order ±o ,prevent injust®ICe result-lng to the concerned parties, the Court may itself pass an order or give directions, which the Government or the public author®Ity Should 10 have passed or given, had it properly and lawfully exercised its discretion.
57. lt 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 ofComptroIIer 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 tide or on irrelevant considerations or by ignoring the relevant cons-IderatiOnS 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. !nl!J. such cases and in any other fit an_dl±±QDer Case a High Court can, In the exercise of its Jurisdiction under Ariic:Ie 226 issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the llatu[e___O_i_ mandf±m±u±Sap± l3aSS Orders and give directions tO compel the performance in a proper and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government or a public authQt:_idyl and in a Proper Case,JJI order to prevent injustiQ_a 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 painftll 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--±h-^6 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 attendant;e of those students, who have .inadequate attendance up to 60%o. All these students be allowed ±o appear in their respective examinations within a period of 15 days from today. The results. ?f the examination of th-e students, wire have already appeared in their respective examinations, be published and de_CIared along with th6 results of examinations of those Students, Whose inadequate attendances have been directed to be eonqpn=d,b.y us. The entire result shall be declared within the scheduled date so that the students do not suffer any further. upon puPIicatjo,n,pf the results, the vice-chancellor of the Patna University a_nd tPe principal, Patna Women's College, shall lay before this .C9ur{. a comdrehensive report so as enaible this court to give such..furiP.er direction(s) as n;ay be warranted by the facts and attending c®lrcumstances of the present case.
24. ln 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 d'lreCtiOn tO Respondent No.4 - College to Publish the result of the 3rd Semester and also to permit the Writ P,etitioner tO COntinue to attend the classes for the 4th 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 compl'lance of the other Regulations in the future.
27. Accordingly, both Writ Petitions stand allowed. No order as to costs.
28. lnteriocutory Applications, 'lf any, stand Closed -ln terms Of this Order.
sd/-N. NAGAMMA //TRUE COPY// ASS:SETcATN#RNEoG:§F¥:
To,
1. The`` PrincipalcSecretary Department Of Technical Educat'lon, State of And.hra Pradesh, ts Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, G u n`-{rife,qR\`i`str'lc.I+;,h ed`tfn\ri,.a,' *'
2. The Vice Chancellor, Jawahar Lai Nehru Technical University (JNTU), Kakinada, East Godavari District.
3. The Controller of Examination, Jawahar Lai Nehru Technical University (JNTU), Kak-lnada, East GodaVari District.
4. The Pr-lncipal, GMR Institute Of Technology, GMR Nagar, Rajam -
532127, Srikakulam District, Andhra Pradesh.
5. One CC to Sri Shaik Rizwan All, Advocate [OPUC]
6. Two CCs to GP for Technical Education, High Court of Andhra pradesh. [OUT]
7. One CC to Sri D.S. SivadarShan, Advocate (OPUC)
8. One CC to Sri I. Madhu Babu, SC for JNTU (OPUC)
9. ThreeC.D. Copies.
Cnr HIGH COURT DATED.. 06/05/2025 COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.28673 of 2024 and 424 of 2025 ALLOWING THE W.Ps WITHOUT COSTS