P. Sankeerh Mouli and ors. Vs. Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Rep. by Its Registrar and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- all india services act, 1951.sections 8 & 11 & a.p. buildings (lease, rent and eviction) control rules, 1961, rule 5: [v.v.s. rao, g. yethirajulu & g. bhavani prasad, jj] refusal by landlord to receive rent - deposit of rent in court - held, a tenant has the option to take recourse to section 8 in case of refusal or evasion by landlord to receive rent and if landlord were to not name a bank or refuse even the money order of rent, the tenant can deposit the rent in accordance with sub-rules (1) to (3) of rule 5. the notice to person entitled to rent and proper maintenance of accounts of such deposits under sub-rules (4) and (5) of rule 5 are solely dependent on compliance with sub-rule (3) by the tenant. the payment or deposit of rent under section 11 read with sub-rule (6) of rule 5 arises only in respect of a tenant who did not take recourse to section 8 or section 9 before an application for eviction has been made against him in respect of any rent in arrears by date of that application, whereas in respect of rent that becomes subsequently due since date of application for eviction, the tenant is bound to pay or deposit regularly until termination of proceedings in order to enable him to contest the application. any violation of section 11(1) to (3) and sub-rule (6) of rule 5 makes the tenant liable for the adverse consequences under sub-section (4) of section 11. thus, the provisions of section 11 and sub-rule (6) of rule 5 are intended only to ensure the payment and deposit of rent including arrears during pendency and till termination of proceedings for eviction. the forfeiture of right of tenant to contest in case of default is to protect the rights and interests of landlord pending such an application for eviction, but not to confer any right on tenant to plead that all defaults committed by him prior to application for eviction can never be considered wilful, if he were to deposit all arrears of rent due within fifteen days under rule 5(6) read with sub-section (1) of section 11. the object and effect of section 11 and sub-rules (1) to (5) to rule 5, the former being for protection of landlord during pendency of eviction proceedings and the later being for protection of tenant to avoid any liability for eviction on ground of wilful default. consequently, while taking recourse to section 8 by tenant is optional, once that option is exercised, compliance with sub-rules (1) to (5) of rule 5 becomes mandatory in the sense that any non-compliance with prescribed procedure will positively indicate the wilful nature of default committed in paying or tendering rent as prescribed. while deposit of rent in terms of provisions of act and the rules amounts to valid tender of rent to landlord, the failure to comply with rule 5 (3) requiring delivery of a copy of the challan for deposit of rent in office of controller or appellate authority, as the case may be, so as to enable controller or appellate authority to cause maintenance of proper accounts under sub-rule (5) and give notice of deposit to person amounts to wilful default in making valid payment or lawful tender of the rent by the tenant to the landlord. thus, where a tenant obtains an order to deposit rent, same shall be deposited at least by the last day of the month following that for which rent is payable and rent challan shall be delivered in the office of controller within a reasonable time so that rent controller can take necessary action for service of notice of deposit under sub-rule (4) of rule 5 of the rules within seven days of such delivery. in the absence of compliance in so depositing rent and delivering challan in the office of controller, tenant shall be deemed to have committed wilful default. - 7. having regard to the well-settled law noticed above, it is clear that shortage of attendance below 65% cannot be condoned in any circumstances. section 6 in unambiguous terms requires that the attendance of each semester has to be taken into consideration and the petitioners are well aware of the same at the time of taking admission to the course. a student may not be able to successfully complete the program or may have very poor knowledge about his field of engineering. 12. the law is well-settled that no mandamus can be issued compelling the statutory authority to act disregarding the law.orderg. rohini, j.1. the petitioners in these writ petitions are the students of engineering course in different colleges affiliated to jawaharlal nehru technological university and all the writ petitions are filed aggrieved by the action of the university in not permitting the petitioners to appear for the examinations on the ground of shortage of attendance. since all the petitioners are similarly situated and a common question of law arises for consideration, these writ petitions are heard together and decided by this common order.2. jawaharlal nehru technological university (for short, 'jntu') is established and incorporated in the state of andhra pradesh under section 3 of jawaharlal nehru technological university act, 1972 (for short, 'the act').3. in exercise of the powers conferred under paragraph-7(d) of part-ii of the schedule to the act, the academic senate of the university made academic regulations. section 6 of the said regulations which deals with the attendance runs as under:6 attendance:(i) a student has to put in a minimum of 75% of attendance in aggregate of all the subjects for acquiring credits in the i year and/or each semester thereafter.(ii) condonation of shortage of attendance in aggregate upto 10% (65% and above and below 75%) in each semester of i year may be granted by the college academic committee.(iii) a student will not be promoted to the next semester unless he satisfies the attendance requirement of the present semester/i year.(iv) shortage of attendance below 65% in aggregate shall in no case be condoned.(v) students whose shortage of attendance is not condoned in any semester/1 year are not eligible to take their end examination of that class and their registration shall stand cancelled. they may seek re-admission for that semester/i year when offered next.(vi) condonation of shortage of attendance as stipulated in 6(ii) above shall be granted on genuine and valid grounds with supporting evidence.(vii) a stipulated fee shall be payable towards condonation of shortage of attendance.4. a plain reading of the above provision shows that it is mandatory for every student to put in a minimum of 75% attendance in i year or each semester thereafter. however, shortage of attendance in aggregate upto 10% i.e., 65% and above and below 75% in each semester or i year, may be condoned by the college academic committee. as per section 6(iv), shortage of attendance below 65% in aggregate shall not be condoned in any case. section 6(iii) further mandates that a student will not be promoted to the next semester unless he satisfies the requirement of attendance of the present semester/1 year.5. the validity of the above said regulation relating to attendance was questioned before this court in w.p. nos. 8720 and 9071 of 2004 on various grounds. after hearing both the parties by an elaborate order dated 30-11-2004 this court upheld the validity of section 6 of the academic regulations.6. in k. pradeep v. jawaharlal nehru technological university : 2002 (3) alt 794 (d.b.) a division bench of this court while observing that attending the college as prescribed by the university is an essential element of education held that no mandamus can be issued compelling either the university or the college to condone the shortage of attendance beyond the limit prescribed in the academic regulations. similar view was taken by another division bench in m. sunil chakravarthy v. principal, sreekalahasteeswara institute of technology : 2005 (2) alt 184 (d.b.). in a recent decision in b. yugandhar v. principal, kuppam engineering college : 2008 (2) alt 529 (d.b.) the said question again fell for consideration and after reviewing all the decided cases, it was reiterated by the division bench that the court cannot issue a judicial fiat to the college to admit the appellant to the examinations thereby violating the mandate of the academic regulations.7. having regard to the well-settled law noticed above, it is clear that shortage of attendance below 65% cannot be condoned in any circumstances. it is also clear that the discretion conferred on the college academic committee under section 6 (ii) of the regulations to condone the shortage of attendance upto 10% in each semester has to be exercised judiciously in genuine cases where valid grounds, supported with evidence, were made out.8. i have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record.9. the attendance of the petitioners in all these writ petitions in the respective semesters was less than 65%. though the said fact could not be disputed, it is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the university ought to have considered the aggregate attendance of whole academic year instead of a particular semester. it is further contended that disqualifying a student not only for the particular semester but also for the next semester on the ground of shortage of attendance is arbitrary and illegal. in support of the said submission, the learned counsel relied upon a decision of this court in p. raghu vamshi v. vice chancellor, jntu, r.r. district : 2006 (1) ald 294.10. as noticed above, section 6 of the academic regulations relating to attendance was already upheld by this court. section 6 in unambiguous terms requires that the attendance of each semester has to be taken into consideration and the petitioners are well aware of the same at the time of taking admission to the course. section 6 (iii) made it very clear that the student will not be promoted to the next semester unless he satisfies the required attendance of the present semester. hence the contention of the petitioners that the aggregate attendance of the academic year shall be taken into consideration is untenable and cannot be accepted. in p. raghu vamshi's case (supra) this court never declared that a student who has 50% attendance shall be permitted to appear for examination of that semester as contended on behalf of the petitioner. in the said decision this court had only directed the university to consider the feasibility. accordingly, a high level committee was appointed by the university and the said committee, after due deliberations, opined that the academic regulations as prescribed shall not be deviated or diluted in any manner in the larger interest of maintaining the standards in technical education, observing as under:engineering education is a sequential form of education in which, subjects are taught such that understanding certain basic subjects is essential for further continuation of studies. a student is expected to have the minimum basic concepts about a subject by attending at least 65% of the classes in that subject, for that semester, at the least minimum level. a student having attendance less than this is not expected to have the knowledge about that subject and will not be able to understand the other subjects in the subsequent semesters, due to the sequential nature of academic curriculum. a student may not be able to successfully complete the program or may have very poor knowledge about his field of engineering. as such the standards in technical education will fall miserably, if the minimum attendance requirements are not enforced. to enable the students to learn about a subject through a formal teaching -learning process, in a class room, academic senate consisting of senior professors, academicians and administrators from reputed colleges and universities frame the academic regulations.11. since the petitioners in all these writ petitions had less than 65% of attendance in aggregate in the respective semesters, there is no question of considering their cases for condonation of delay (sic. shortage) under section 6(ii) of the academic regulations by the college academic committee. even assuming that the petitioners could not attend the classes for genuine reasons, as their attendance was less than 65%, they are not eligible for promotion to the next semester. hence the impugned action of the respondents in not permitting them to appear for the examinations cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal.12. the law is well-settled that no mandamus can be issued compelling the statutory authority to act disregarding the law. in identical circumstances, the supreme court in a.k. thakur v. university of himachal pradesh held that the university cannot be compelled to allow the petitioners therein to appear for the examinations by condoning the shortage of attendance since the same was beyond its legal competence to do.13. for the aforesaid reasons, the relief as prayed for cannot be granted and accordingly all the writ petitions are dismissed. no costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

G. Rohini, J.

1. The petitioners in these writ petitions are the students of Engineering Course in different colleges affiliated to Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University and all the writ petitions are filed aggrieved by the action of the University in not permitting the petitioners to appear for the examinations on the ground of shortage of attendance. Since all the petitioners are similarly situated and a common question of law arises for consideration, these writ petitions are heard together and decided by this common order.

2. Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (for short, 'JNTU') is established and incorporated in the State of Andhra Pradesh under Section 3 of Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Act, 1972 (for short, 'the Act').

3. In exercise of the powers conferred under paragraph-7(d) of Part-II of the Schedule to the Act, the Academic Senate of the University made Academic Regulations. Section 6 of the said Regulations which deals with the attendance runs as under:

6 Attendance:

(i) A student has to put in a minimum of 75% of attendance in aggregate of all the subjects for acquiring credits in the I year and/or each semester thereafter.

(ii) Condonation of shortage of attendance in aggregate upto 10% (65% and above and below 75%) in each semester of I year may be granted by the College Academic Committee.

(iii) A student will not be promoted to the next semester unless he satisfies the attendance requirement of the present semester/I year.

(iv) Shortage of Attendance below 65% in aggregate shall in no case be condoned.

(v) Students whose shortage of attendance is not condoned in any semester/1 year are not eligible to take their end examination of that class and their registration shall stand cancelled. They may seek re-admission for that semester/I year when offered next.

(vi) Condonation of shortage of attendance as stipulated in 6(ii) above shall be granted on genuine and valid grounds with supporting evidence.

(vii) A stipulated fee shall be payable towards condonation of shortage of attendance.

4. A plain reading of the above provision shows that it is mandatory for every student to put in a minimum of 75% attendance in I year or each semester thereafter. However, shortage of attendance in aggregate upto 10% i.e., 65% and above and below 75% in each semester or I year, may be condoned by the College Academic Committee. As per Section 6(iv), shortage of attendance below 65% in aggregate shall not be condoned in any case. Section 6(iii) further mandates that a student will not be promoted to the next semester unless he satisfies the requirement of attendance of the present semester/1 year.

5. The validity of the above said Regulation relating to Attendance was questioned before this Court in W.P. Nos. 8720 and 9071 of 2004 on various grounds. After hearing both the parties by an elaborate order dated 30-11-2004 this Court upheld the validity of Section 6 of the Academic Regulations.

6. In K. Pradeep v. Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University : 2002 (3) ALT 794 (D.B.) a Division Bench of this Court while observing that attending the college as prescribed by the University is an essential element of education held that no Mandamus can be issued compelling either the University or the College to condone the shortage of attendance beyond the limit prescribed in the Academic Regulations. Similar view was taken by another Division Bench in M. Sunil Chakravarthy v. Principal, Sreekalahasteeswara Institute of Technology : 2005 (2) ALT 184 (D.B.). In a recent decision in B. Yugandhar v. Principal, Kuppam Engineering College : 2008 (2) ALT 529 (D.B.) the said question again fell for consideration and after reviewing all the decided cases, it was reiterated by the Division Bench that the Court cannot issue a judicial fiat to the college to admit the appellant to the examinations thereby violating the mandate of the Academic Regulations.

7. Having regard to the well-settled law noticed above, it is clear that shortage of attendance below 65% cannot be condoned in any circumstances. It is also clear that the discretion conferred on the College Academic Committee under Section 6 (ii) of the Regulations to condone the shortage of attendance upto 10% in each semester has to be exercised judiciously in genuine cases where valid grounds, supported with evidence, were made out.

8. I have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record.

9. The attendance of the petitioners in all these writ petitions in the respective semesters was less than 65%. Though the said fact could not be disputed, it is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the University ought to have considered the aggregate attendance of whole academic year instead of a particular semester. It is further contended that disqualifying a student not only for the particular semester but also for the next semester on the ground of shortage of attendance is arbitrary and illegal. In support of the said submission, the learned Counsel relied upon a decision of this Court in P. Raghu Vamshi v. Vice Chancellor, JNTU, R.R. District : 2006 (1) ALD 294.

10. As noticed above, Section 6 of the Academic Regulations relating to attendance was already upheld by this Court. Section 6 in unambiguous terms requires that the attendance of each semester has to be taken into consideration and the petitioners are well aware of the same at the time of taking admission to the course. Section 6 (iii) made it very clear that the student will not be promoted to the next semester unless he satisfies the required attendance of the present semester. Hence the contention of the petitioners that the aggregate attendance of the academic year shall be taken into consideration is untenable and cannot be accepted. In P. Raghu Vamshi's case (supra) this Court never declared that a student who has 50% attendance shall be permitted to appear for examination of that semester as contended on behalf of the petitioner. In the said decision this Court had only directed the University to consider the feasibility. Accordingly, a High Level Committee was appointed by the University and the said Committee, after due deliberations, opined that the Academic Regulations as prescribed shall not be deviated or diluted in any manner in the larger interest of maintaining the standards in technical education, observing as under:

Engineering education is a sequential form of education in which, subjects are taught such that understanding certain basic subjects is essential for further continuation of studies. A student is expected to have the minimum basic concepts about a subject by attending at least 65% of the classes in that subject, for that semester, at the least minimum level. A student having attendance less than this is not expected to have the knowledge about that subject and will not be able to understand the other subjects in the subsequent semesters, due to the sequential nature of academic curriculum. A student may not be able to successfully complete the program or may have very poor knowledge about his field of engineering. As such the standards in technical education will fall miserably, if the minimum attendance requirements are not enforced. To enable the students to learn about a subject through a formal teaching -learning process, in a class room, academic Senate consisting of Senior Professors, Academicians and Administrators from reputed colleges and Universities frame the academic regulations.

11. Since the petitioners in all these writ petitions had less than 65% of attendance in aggregate in the respective semesters, there is no question of considering their cases for condonation of delay (sic. Shortage) under Section 6(ii) of the Academic Regulations by the College Academic Committee. Even assuming that the petitioners could not attend the classes for genuine reasons, as their attendance was less than 65%, they are not eligible for promotion to the next semester. Hence the impugned action of the respondents in not permitting them to appear for the examinations cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal.

12. The law is well-settled that no Mandamus can be issued compelling the statutory authority to act disregarding the law. In identical circumstances, the Supreme Court in A.K. Thakur v. University of Himachal Pradesh held that the University cannot be compelled to allow the petitioners therein to appear for the examinations by condoning the shortage of attendance since the same was beyond its legal competence to do.

13. For the aforesaid reasons, the relief as prayed for cannot be granted and accordingly all the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs.