High Court Kerala High Court

Hareesh G vs The Vice Chancellor on 22 August, 2008

Kerala High Court
Hareesh G vs The Vice Chancellor on 22 August, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA.No. 1749 of 2008()


1. HAREESH G.,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. NABEEL N.,
3. NISHAN B, AGED 20 YEARS,
4. NITHIN MANIKANTAN, AGED 19 YEARS,

                        Vs



1. THE VICE CHANCELLOR,
                       ...       Respondent

2. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION

3. THE PRINCIPAL, COLLEGE OF

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER

 Dated :22/08/2008

 O R D E R
                     H.L.Dattu, C.J. & A.K.Basheer, J.
                    ----------------------------------------------
                             W.A.No.1749 of 2008
                    ----------------------------------------------
                   Dated, this the 22nd day of August, 2008

                                  JUDGMENT

Basheer, J.

The appellants are 5th Semester students in Computer Science in

Government College of Engineering, Attingal. Their grievance before the

learned Single Judge was that they were not permitted to write the 5th

Semester Examination on the ground that they did not have the requisite

minimum percentage of attendance. But placing heavy reliance on Exhibit P7

communication, which was stated to have been received from the College, it

was contended by the appellants before the learned Single Judge that going by

the entries made in the above communication, it was evident that the

appellants did, in fact, have the minimum requisite percentage of attendance

to their credit.

2. The learned Judge, after considering the contentions raised

by the appellants and the University as well as the Principal, found that

Exhibit P7 was in respect of only one subject, viz., “Micro Processor”, and

that Annexure-I produced by the Principal before the University did reveal the

correct position with regard to the attendance obtained by the appellants

during the 5th Semester.

3. A perusal of Annexure-I will show that the appellants had

only 60%, 64%, 61% and 60% of attendance respectively during the 5th

W.A.No.1749 of 2008

– 2 –

Semester. It is beyond controversy that a student ought to get a minimum of

75% attendance, subject of course, to the powers of the Vice Chancellor to

condone the shortage of attendance up to 5%. In other words, a student must

necessarily have 70% of attendance after condonation, if any. A student who

does not have minimum percentage of attendance to his credit as prescribed

under the Regulations, cannot be declared to have completed the Semester.

Going by Annexure-I, it was evident that the appellants did not have the

requisite minimum percentage of attendance during the 5th Semester.

Therefore, they could not have been admitted to the 6th Semester.

4. The learned Judge had adverted to all the above aspects

carefully. We have also been taken through the materials available on record.

We are satisfied that the view taken by the learned Single Judge does not call

for any interference. Therefore, while confirming the orders passed by the

learned Judge, the Writ Appeal is dismissed.





                                                    H.L.Dattu
                                                  Chief Justice




                                                  A.K.Basheer
vku/-                                                  Judge