IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BHNGALGHE
DATED THIS THE 14" DAY or SEPTEEEEE;i2dQ9i~
PRESENT»-
THE HON'BLE MR.JUsTicE K L.MAHafiHHTH fif
THE HON'BLE MRs{JHST:cs B V NAGAHATHNA
w,A.No.13é2roH.2ob9--.-7
BE TWEEN 2
Sri Vivek.JayarH5"iVV< V'
S/0 T.V.Jay3wfiafi,1hV i,'H"~~
Aged£H24.Yéars,j*'t
C/q"v§Anéesh§" "A
Motisham Euildifigf»_--'
Old Kent Road% ' "T
Opp: Telecdmiflfiuééi
PandesHwar,_] '"
Mfingalroérl
. 'Bfi its power Uf attorney
",HoldertSri.T.V.Jay#rajan,
"_S/ofT;VLDémodarana
_ Age} 63'yéars, retired service,
HP.O,MKa;aparamba,
Kergia State
ca1cut4673o1o
Appellant
i(By Sri.K M.Nataraj, Adv.)
AND:
1. Mangalore University,
Mangala Gangothir
Konaje, %?{'
Mangalore
Rep. by its Registrar
2. Sarosh Institute of iflm
Hotel, Administration;
Pentagon Complex, h
Pumpwell, .7;
Mangalore:S75 002
Rep. By its
Administrato:W_ __ .
"" )5; Respondents
(By Sri,.P.S,RajavGopal;i$r;Counse1 for
M/s. B;s,Raje Gopalgfisfiociates for R1;
Sri. Vijaye Krishna,Bhat; Adv. For R«2)
ViWThis{W.EC is filed B/s 4 of the Karnataka
High Court Ant praying to set aside the order
passed in the Writ Eetition No.6l25/2008 dated
13.4.2009.' "' 'a
'uITHISRwA§PEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
, 'sfiARING THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J, DELIVERED THE
.j2EoLLoWING:
JUDGMENT
‘ This Writ Appeal is directed against the
“*order dt.13.é.2009 passed by the Learned
isingle Judge in Writ Petition No.6125/2008.
2. The Writ Petition was filed. by the
appellant herein seeking a writ of mandamus
3%»
against the respondents to consider this
representations and to condone the shortage of
attendance and to permit him to apfiear foruk
the Practical examination “which_ were dto
commence on 21” April onwards and also final
year examination which were to commence from
4th May 2008
3. fAfter.hser§ice_”o£«’notice on the
resfiondents end after hearing both sides, the
Learned’ siegie,VJedge dismissed the Writ
Petition ‘by; holding that the petitioner’s
“rep;esentation” had been considered and an
“_ereeg’7hea” been passed as per Annexure–R6
H§£.11[4,éoo8, which had not been challenged in
the 3Writ Petition. However, the Learned
x =_Single Judge considered. Regulation~8 of the
concerned Regulations and held that since the
petitioner did not satisfy minimum requirement
of attendance which is 65% in each of the
V’
subjects he was not entitled to any relief in
the said Writ Petition, accordingly Siamissed
the Writ Petition.
4. Being aggrieved by the said order; th
petitioner has filedlllthis appeal
5. We have heatd the learned counsel for
the appellant and the iéarfiég counsel for the
respondent#Qniversit§ as fiell as the College.
t.6.. It “is 7, contended on behalf of the
appellant that on account of illness. The
‘afipellant did not have the minimum attendance
” as h§.&ae suffering from Malaria and that an
A.opportunity should have been given by the
leatned Single Judge to take the examination
x =_hy condoning the shortage of attendance or
otherwise he would have lost an academic year.
7. Per contra, it is submitted on behalf
of ‘the respondent~University’ as well as the
.5:
52,
(3
College, as per Annexure-R6. We fiindf that
despite coming to know of this lfact? “no *
attempt was made by the appellant to make np
the shortage of Vattendance. plUnderVg”thep
circumstances, the Collede did not perfiit the’
appellant to take up the exa$ination’in April-
May 2008. Regulation 8 reads as follows:
“8. Attendance: l
8.1_ ____ _A candidate shall be considered to have
satisfied }the_ reqnirement of attendance for
the year if”he]she attends not less than 75%
of the member of classes actually held up to
‘the end of the year in each of the subjects
“._fiin%i theory and practicals separately).
“_a§w§v¢1)«_ the shortage of attendance of
“student dwhose attendance is 65% and above but
below 75% may be condoned by the University on
payirzent of condonation fee as prescribed by
“athe University by following the rules
prescribed for condonation.
8.2 A candidate who does not satisfy the
requirement of attendance even in one subject
éf
49:,/W
shall not be permitted to take the ryhcle
University examination of that year7andfhe}sh§k
shall not be allowed to Vpr’o’ceed}’ hnextuu
year. Such a candidate shallubegreduired to
repeat the course ixui a subsequent year anda
fulfill the attendance requirements as statedl
in para Bfl above;f
Under Regulation .§~ -8; of §the concerned
Regulation,1f the« aminimum ” requirement of
attendance is_ 75%–5in”each{aoff the subjects.
However, the ,shortage,’Qfa_attendance of any
students, if it is by only 5%, namely, if it
is upto 6§% can he condoned by the University
on Hthe* recommendation of the Principal on
Zfgpayment:
xofhthe_reéuisite fee in terms of the
lsaid Rulesgfl However, in the instant case, it
;has came pn record that the appellant had only
Arl§Q% attendance in certain subjects. Under the
V”»circumstances, there was no question of
V’,condonation of the shortage of attendance
contrary to the rules. Hence the University as
3%
well as the College rightly did not 9ermitihim_
to take the examination which tqofikplece ifiuix
April – May 2008. On the said ieéeohinq the
Learned Single Judge; diémissedwwthe ‘Wtitx
Petition with which we éog¢u;.
9. Hence, the Whit hfipealkheing devoid of
the merit, :’;.s”_’lalé.:o ;1::’Vsmj,é~s§e.d.’ ”
sd/«lg
a ‘O. Q _g _ Judge
Iudqé
