While observing that no hard and fast rule can be laid with regard to the absence of a student on medical grounds, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has asked a College to permit a B.Tech Student having less than 75% attendance to attend his 4th semester classes.

The student’s father had approached the High Court seeking a direction to the College to allow the petitioner's son to appear in the 3rd semester exams by duly considering medical grounds as well as the application of the petitioner. The Petitioner also sought a direction to the College to allow the petitioner's son to attend further classes and to write the examinations in order to complete the course i.e., Al and DS of Bachelor of Technology (B.Tech).

Referring to an academic regulation of the private institution, which provides that a lack of attendance can only be condoned to an extent of 10 %, the Single Bench of Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad said, “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.”

Advocate Rizwan Ali Shaik represented the Petitioner, while Advocate D.S. Sivadarshan represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The son of the Writ Petitioner is a student studying a B.Tech course in the Respondent College. The son of the Writ Petitioner is aged about 20 years. While he was pursuing the 3rd Semester, the Writ Petitioner fell ill in two different spells. He submitted a Medical Certificate indicating that he is suffering from Acute Gastroenteritis and Widal Fever. The Writ Petitioner again fell ill and could not attend classes. The Medical Certificate issued by the Medical Officer of Primary Health Centre would indicate that the Writ Petitioner had suffered from Typhoid Fever and was absent and could not attend classes from October 21, 2024, to October 31, 2024.

Vide an Order, a Single Judge had directed the Respondents to receive the Examination Fee pending disposal of the Writ Petition. The Respondents received the Examination Fee and permitted the Petitioner to appear in the Examination. After the declaration of result, when the student’s result had not been declared, the Writ Petitioner was constrained to file a Petition. On the last hearing, the Court had indicated that the father of the student is not entitled to file a Writ Petition, since the aggrieved student himself is a major.

Reasoning

Referring to the academic regulations, the Bench noted that as per Regulation 9 (b) even on medical grounds, lack of attendance can only be condoned to an extent of 10 % and not more than that. It was further mentioned that 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 the Respondent College, in the form of Academic Regulations. The Bench also found this rule to be not only irrational but highly arbitrary, since no hard and fast rule can be laid with regard to the absence of a student on medical ground.

“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", it said.

Counsel for the Writ Petitioner had also brought to the attention of the Court a Representation made by the father of the Writ Petitioner indicating that the College had informed him that the Writ Petitioner has 57.5% attendance and the shortage is only 7.5% if 65% is taken as the minimum attendance requirement.

Reference was made by the Bench to the judgment of the Patna High Court in All India Students Federation vs. The State of Bihar & Others (2016) wherein it has been held that a Student cannot be mechanically made to suffer penal consequences on the mere shortage of attendance below 75%.

Thus, allowing the writ petitions, the Bench directed the Respondent College to publish the result of the 3rd Semester and also to permit the Writ Petitioner to continue to attend the classes for the 4th Semester. “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”, it concluded.

Cause Title: B Venkateswara Rao v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (Case No.:W.P.No.28673 of 2024 & W.P.No. 424 of 2025)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocate Rizwan Ali Shaik

Respondents: Advocate D.S. Sivadarshan, GP for Technical Education

Click here to read/download Order


Andhra Pradesh High CourtJustice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.