APHC010286732025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT APPEAL NOS: 697 AND 698 OF 2025 WRIT APPEAL NO: 697 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to Impugned Judgment dated 06.05.2025 passed in W.P. No. 28673 of 2024 on the file of this Hon’ble Court. Between: GMR Institute of Technology, GMR Nagar, Rajam - 532127, District, Andhra Pradesh. Rep. by its Principal Dr. CLVRSV. Prasad set aside the Srikakulam ...Appellant/Respondent No.4 AND 1. B V K Koushik, S/o. Sri B. Venkateswara Rao, Aged about 20 R/o. Flat No. 4/3, Srinivasam - I, Madhura Nagar Colony, Srikakulam Town and District - 532001, Andhra Pradesh. years ...Respondent No.1/Writ Petitioner 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Technical Education, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 3. Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University JNTU, Kakinada, Rep. by its Vice Chancellor, Kakinada, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. 4. The Controller of Examinations, Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (JNTU), Kakinada, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondents/Respondents No.1 to 3 lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the Impugned Judgment dated 06.05.2025 passed in W.P.No.28673 of 2024. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D S SIVADARSHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI RIZWAN ALI SHAIK Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI I MADHU BABU Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI RAMA CHANDRA RAO GURRAM APHC010289352025 WRIT APPEAL NO: 698 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the Impugned Judgment dated 06.05.2025 passed in W.P. No. 424 of 2025 on the file of this Hon’ble Court. Between: GMR Institute of Technology, GMR Nagar, Rajam - 532127 District, Andhra Pradesh. Rep. by its Principal Dr. CLVRSV. Prasad Srikakulam ...Appelant/Respondent No.4 AND 1. B V K Koushik, S/o. Sri B. Venkateswara Rao, Aged about 20 years, R/o. Flat No. 4/3, Srinivasam - I, Madhura Nagar Colony, Srikakulam Town and District - 532001, Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondent No.1/Writ Petitioner 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Technical Education, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 3. Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University JNTU, Kakinada, Rep. by (Kakinada, East Godavari District, Andhra its Vice Chancellor, Pradesh. 4. The Controller of Examinations, Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (JNTU), Kakinada, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondents/Respondents No.1 to 3 lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the Fligh Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the Impugned Judgment dated 06.05.2025 passed in W.P.No.424 of 2025. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D S SIVADARSHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI RIZWAN ALI SHAIK Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI I MADHU BABU Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI RAMA CHANDRA RAO GURRAM The Court made the following Common Order: r Bench Sr.No:-30 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI &31 APHC010286732025 [3483] WRIT APPEAL NO: 697 of 2025 along with W.A.No.698 of 2025 GMR Institute of Technology, GMR Nagar, Rajam - 532127, Srikakulam District, Andhra Pradesh Rep., by its Principal Dr. CLVRSV Prasad ...Appellant Vs. ...Respondents B V K Koushik and Others ********** Mr. D S Sivadarshan Advocate for Appellant; Advocate(s) for Respondent(s); Mr. Rizwan Ali Shaik for R.1 Mr. Gurram Rama Chandra Rao for R.2 to R.4 CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 30^*’ June, 2025 Per Dhirai Singh Thakur. CJ (oral): The present writ appeals have been preferred against a common judgment and order, dated 06.05.2025, by virtue of which W.P.Nos.28673 of 2024 and 424 of 2025 came to be finally disposed of. HCJ & RC, J WAs_697 & 698_2025 2. Briefly stated the material facts are as under; The petitioner is a candidate who was enrolled in the B.Tech course with GMR Institute of Technology (appellate herein) institution. an autonomous In the 3'^'^ semester, the petitioner did not secure the required percentage of attendance which would have otherwise entitled him to take the examination. It is not out of place to mention that according to the Jawaharlal Technological University [for short, ‘the JNTU’] Statutes Nehru which are para materia with the regulations of the appellant college, minimum attendance requirement for making a candidate eligible for sitting in the examination is 65% in each subject with overall aggregate of 75%. The petitioner is stated to have not been successful in acquiring the requisite percentage of attendance and attributed the same to his indisposition during two spells in the said course. According to the JNTU Statutes, deficiency upto 10% in attendance can be condoned by the Principal of the college, exercised, yet, the petitioner was held not to have become eligible to sit in the examination inasmuch as he had secured 50.92% in the aggregate which was much below the required percentages prescribed by the JNTU. Even if this power was 3 HCJ & RC, J WAS 697 & 698 2025 Notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner was ineligible, since the petitioner had approached the Court by way of the petitions, interim orders were issued permitting him to take the 3”^^ semester examination and th subsequently directions were issued to permit him to be admitted in the 4 semester. Finally by virtue of the common judgment and order impugned, the two writ petitions came to be disposed of with a direction to the JNTU as also the appellant college to permit the petitioner to continue the course without any interruption as also to publish the result of the 3'^'^ semester. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant college states that the results of the petitioner for both 3'^'^ and 4*^ semester have since been declared and the petitioner is continuing his course in the S**" semester at present. It is not out of place to mention here that in the 3^^^ semester the petitioner had failed in all the subjects in which he had appeared and in the 4*^ semester examination he had failed in two subjects. 4. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the direction issued by the learned single Judge, whether interim or at the final stage at the time of disposal of the writ petitions, was unsustainable in law inasmuch as permitting a candidate to appear in the examination without securing the minimum attendance requirement was impermissible as per the Statutes and any direction contrary to Statutes would certainly be unsustainable. 4 HCJ & RC, J WAs_697 & 698_2025 While we fully agree with the legal position as has been projected by learned counsel for the appellant, however, we feel that reverting the petitioner back to 3*^^ semester and nullifying the continuity of his course in the 4*^ semester as also the course undertaken by him till now in the semester would be extremely unfair and would gravely prejudice the academic interest of the petitioner more so when the petitioner had undertaken the course in the semester as also the 5*^ semester pursuant to the directions issued by this Court. 6. f With a view to somehow find a solution to the problem, this Court realized that a candidate who otherwise falls short in his attendance during a particular semester can be permitted to attend extra classes to the extent of 7. the deficiency and this is reflected by virtue of the Academic Regulations of the appellant college vide regulation No.9(i) & (j) which are reproduced hereunder; “9.i. In case of the student having less than 65% of attendance in any of the theory/lab courses/ECA&CCA activities/Employability skills during a particular semester and less than 75%o in Summer Internship-I/Summer Internship-ll, he/she will not be permitted to appear for the semester end examination in that particular course. In all such cases, the students need to register for the makeup classes which will be notified by the CoE office at appropriate time. The students shall secure 90% of the attendance in the make-up classes to appear for the semester end assessment and will be treated as a second attempt. The number of makeup classes to be conducted will be at least 35%, of the regular class work taken in a particular course. ” 5 HCJ & RC, J WAS 697&698_2025 Learned counsel for the appellant college, therefore, fairly stated 8. th that while the petitioner would be entitled to undergo his course in the 5 semester and also appear in the supplementary examination insofar as 4 semester is concerned, he would still be under an obligation to fulfill the statutory requirement for which the college would enable him to undergo ‘make up classes’ on payment of fee which is otherwise chargeable in such th cases. It is stated that the petitioner may have to undergo approximately 15 days of make-up classes in every subject and the subjects are numbering 8, in addition to the practical classes. Learned counsel for the JNTU has no objection to the petitioner 9. attending the make-up classes as is otherwise permissible by virtue of the Academic Regulations of the appellant college, which is an autonomous body. 10. We are also of the opinion that the view expressed by the learned single Judge in holding the College and the University regulations prescribing the minimum attendance as irrational and arbitrary is a view which in our opinion is unsustainable. The common judgment and order impugned to that extent is set aside. We make it clear that the direction passed by us in the present case is in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case especially in view of the fact that the interim orders had been passed by the Court permitting the candidate 6 HCJ & RC, J WAs_697 & 698_2025 to attend not only the classes but also appear in the examination and the same shall not form a precedent for future reference. 11. Be that as it may, the Writ Appeals are disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To. 1. B V K Koushik, S/o. Sri B. Venkateswara Rao, Aged about 20 years. R/o. Flat No. 4/3, Srinivasam - I, Madhura Nagar Colony, Srikakulam Town and District - 532001, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The Principal Secretary State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Technical Education, Guntur District. 3. The Vice Chancellor, Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University JNTU, Kakinada, Kakinada, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. 4. The Controller of Examinations, Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (JNTU), Kakinada, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. 5. One CC to SRI. D S SIVADARSHAN, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to SRI. RIZWAN ALI SHAIK, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to SRI. MADHU BABU ISUKAPATLA, Advocate [OPUC] 8. One CC to SRI. RAMA CHANDRA RAO GURRAM, Advocate [OPUC] 9. Two CCs to GP FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] Two CD Copies 10. sree , \ HIGH COURT DATED:30/06/2025 COMMON ORDER WA NOs. 697 & 698 OF 2025 I* T f JUL 2025 ^ . Current Sectton . O' m Pi.i DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEALS WITHOUT COSTS