Andhra Pradesh: The Andhra Pradesh High Court has delivered a significant judgment allowing a B.Tech student to continue his studies despite low attendance due to medical issues, emphasizing that educational institutions cannot mechanically enforce attendance requirements in cases of genuine illness.
Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad made crucial observations regarding the irrationality of rigid attendance policies that fail to consider genuine medical conditions beyond a student’s control.
The court addressed the case involving two writ petitions filed by B.V.K. Koushik against the State of Andhra Pradesh, Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, and GMR Institute of Technology. The court noted: “The writ petitioner had illness in two spells: once between 19.08.2024 and 30.08.2024 on account of Acute Gastroenteritis and Widal Fever (Typhoid/Paratyphoid Fever), and again between 21.10.2024 and 31.10.2024 on account of Typhoid Fever.”
Highlighting the arbitrary nature of the college’s regulations, the court observed: “Regulation 9(b) is not only irrational but highly arbitrary, inasmuch as no hard and fast rule can be laid down with regard to the absence of a student on medical grounds.”
The court emphasized that sickness is beyond human control, stating: “It is a matter of common knowledge that sickness is beyond human control. A variety of illnesses can impair the functioning of a human being, thereby disabling them from attending to normal duties.”
In a specific directive, the court instructed: “There shall be a direction to Respondent No.4 - College to publish the result of the 3rd Semester and also to permit the writ petitioner to continue attending classes for the 4th Semester.”
The court emphasized the need for educational institutions to exercise discretion in cases involving medical absences, citing the Patna High Court’s judgment in All India Students Federation vs. The State of Bihar & Others (2016), which held that “a student cannot be mechanically made to suffer penal consequences on the mere shortage of attendance below 75%.”
The court directed GMR Institute of Technology and other respondents to allow the petitioner to continue his course without interruption, subject to compliance with other regulations in the future.
Mr. Shaik Rizwan Ali, Advocate, appeared for the petitioner, and Mr. D.S. Sivadarshan, Advocate, appeared for Respondent No.4.
Case Title: B. Venkateswara Rao vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
