High CourtsSingle Bench

Senthil Manoharan vs The Principal Hindustan College of Engineering, The Controller of Examination, Anna University and The Registrar, Anna University

Madras High Court · Decided on 6 August 2009 · Citation: (2009) 08 MAD CK 0199

HON’BLE JUDGES
M. Jaichandren, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 10941 of 2009 and M.P. No. 1 of 2009
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

37 paragraphs · 769 words

M. Jaichandren, J.—Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Counsels appearing for the respondents.

2.

The petitioner has stated that he is a second year student studying in the IV Semester of the B.E. Mechanical Engineering Course, in the first

respondent College. While he was attending the classes of the IV Semester he had met with an accident, on 23.1.2009. Thereafter, he was not in a

position to attend the classes, till 31.1.2009. The petitioner had produced the necessary medical certificate, before the first respondent College, on

9.2.2009. He had also paid the examination fees and he had applied for the hall ticket to write the IV Semester examinations.

3.

It has been further stated that the petitioner had received the hall ticket, on 20.5.2009. However, the petitioner had been permitted to write only

the arrear examinations. On verification from the authorities of the first respondent College, the petitioner was informed that he had 67.61 % of

attendance, including the days when he was on medical leave. However, the first respondent College has not calculated the attendance of the

practical classes, along with the regular attendance, for calculating the minimum number of hours required for each semester. Therefore, the

petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4.

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent College had submitted that the petitioner was irregular in attending classes and

he had attended only 296 class hours in the IV Semester, out of the 450 class hours. As such, the petitioner had obtained 65.78% of attendance.

The petitioner''s attendance for 296 class hours includes his attendance in practical classes and 45 hours granted by the Principal of the first

respondent College, towards medical leave. The details of the attendance secured by the petitioner are as follows:

a) Attendance for Theory classes - 181 hours

b) Attendance for Practical Classes - 70 hours

c) Attendance for medical leave - 45 hours

Total - 296 hours

5.

It has been further submitted that even during the academic year 2007-2008, the petitioner had been detained in the third semester of the

Course, since he had failed to earn the required attendance. The claim of the petitioner that he was informed that he had 67.61% of attendance is

not correct. From the attendance register relating to the course attended by the petitioner, it is clear that the petitioner had only 65.78 % of the

total class hours. According to the regulations of the Anna University, the minimum over all percentage of attendance required, to write all the

subjects of the IV Semester University Examinations, is 75%. Since the petitioner had obtained only 65.78% of attendance in the IV Semester, he

was detained from writing the IV Semester examinations. Further, a letter had been submitted by the petitioner stating that he has only 48%

attendance, as on March, 2009. He had also submitted that he would maintain a minimum of 75% attendance, as per the Anna University Norms

and Regulations. He had stated that he was fully aware that he would be detained from appearing in the University Examinations, if he would not

have the 75% attendance. In such circumstances, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits.

6.

In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, this Court is of the

considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner, in the present writ

petition. Nothing has been shown on behalf of the petitioner to substantiate his claim that he had the required attendance to write the IV Semester

examinations. From the records placed before this Court, it is clear that the petitioner had only 65.78%, including the practical classes and the

hours granted to him by the principal of the medical college, towards medical leave. The petitioner had only a total of 296 class hours out of the

450 class hours in the IV Semester of the B.E. Mechanical Engineering Course. Since the minimum attendance required, as per the Norms and

Regulations of the Anna university, to write the University Examinations is 75%, the petitioner having obtained only 65.78 %, had not been eligible

to write the IV Semester examinations. In such circumstances, it is clear that the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner cannot be

countenanced. As the writ petition is devoid of merits, it stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected writ petition miscellaneous petition

is closed.