Muralee Krishna, J.

1. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.48465 of 2025 filed this writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment dated 06.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.

2. Going by averments in the writ petition, the appellant is a student studying for five-year integrated course in BBA, LLB in the College of the 1st respondent. The 9th semester examinations, as per Ext.P1 timetable issued by the Kerala University, commence on 06.01.2026. The appellant is aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the College to allow her to appear for the 9th semester examinations, stating the reason of shortage of attendance. According to the appellant, the shortage of attendance occurred since she was undergoing treatment in the KIMS Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, for lung infection. It is also the case of the appellant that the College did not conduct the classes for sufficient days as per the University Regulations, and also did not consider the attendance in the moot court and ADR, and hence the attendance shortage for the appellant. Showing shortage of classes conducted by the 1st respondent and requesting to conduct additional classes, the appellant submitted Ext.P3 representation dated 30.11.2025 to the 1st respondent and Ext.P4 complaint dated 27.11.2025 to the Registrar of the University. Thereafter, she filed W.P.(C)No.45542 of 2025 before this Court seeking a direction to permit her to appear for the examination, which was initially scheduled to be held on 12.12.2025. During the pendency of that writ petition, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P6 letter dated 10.12.2025, denying the chance of appearance in the 9th semester examinations for the appellant.

                  2.1. The appellant further pleads that similarly situated persons as that of her were given condonation of attendance by the 1st respondent on medical grounds, and showing the same, the appellant produced Ext.P10 recommendation made by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent. With these pleadings, the appellant filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs ;

                  “a) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P6 letter dated 10.12.2025.

                  b) Issue a writ of mandamus to the respondents to allow the petitioner to appear the examination scheduled by the 2nd respondent as per Ext.P1.

                  c) Direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to consider Exts.P4 & P6 to condone the shortage of attendance.

                  d) Direction to allow the petitioner to attend the 10th semester classes commenced by the 1st respondent college.”

                  2.2. On 06.01.2026, when the writ petition came up for consideration, the learned Single Judge dismissed the same by the impugned judgment. Paragraphs 6, 7 and the last paragraph of that judgment read thus;

                  “6. There is no dispute to the fact that the percentage of actual attendance of classes by the petitioner is only 6.38%. Even after adding attendance of the supplementary examinations for which the petitioner had appeared during the 9th Semester, her attendance comes to only 18.33%. Going by Clause 5 of the Regulations Relating to Integrated Five Year BBA LLB course of the University of Kerala, no candidate shall be permitted to register for the end semester examination conducted by the University unless the Principal has certified that he has obtained not less than 75% attendance in each paper. Of course, if there are valid reasons, the Principal of the institution can recommend for condonation upto 65%. The said exception will not come to the petitioner's rescue as her attendance is an abysmal 18.33%.

                  7. A student of law becomes equipped to appear for the examinations only by attending classes and engaging in curricula related activities like moot courts, seminars, debates etc. Even though the requirement of minimum attendance can be relaxed in deserving cases, doing away the requirement completely will definitely affect the quality of education and lead to indiscipline. Therefore, I am constrained to respectfully differ with the views of the High Court of Delhi as regards the requirement of minimum attendance and the direction that no student enrolled in any recognised law college shall be detained from taking examinations on the ground of lack of minimum attendance. The direction of the High Court of Delhi, though made applicable to institutions imparting education in law across India, does not take away the jurisdiction vested with this Court to come to a different conclusion in view of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India. In reaching such conclusion this Court is also guided by the various decisions rendered by the Apex Court on the limited scope of interference by writ courts in academic matters.

                  For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed.”

3. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, the appellant filed the present writ appeal.

4. On 05.02.2026, when the writ appeal was taken up for consideration, we noticed that the document marked as Ext.P8 is a copy of the medical certificate dated 13.02.2022, wherein it is certified that the appellant was suffering from an allergy to the skin and viral fever, and she was advised to take rest for 30 days with effect from 14.02.2022. In Ext.P9 medical certificate for the period from 11.08.2025 to 26.08.2025, wherein it is certified that one Anandhu Murali was suffering from lower respiratory tract infection.

5. On 05.02.2026, we further noted that along with I.A.No.2 of 2026 filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellant has produced Annexures A1 and A2 medical records with a pleading in the supporting affidavit that the copy of the medical records issued by the KIMS Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, is produced along with that application may be marked as Annexure A1 and the copy of the medical certificate issued from the General Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram dated 07.11.2025 may be marked as Annexure A2.

6. By the order dated 05.03.2026 in I.A.No.5 of 2026, additional respondents 4 and 5 are impleaded in the writ appeal. The learned Standing Counsel for the University of Kerala entered appearance for the said respondents.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, the learned Standing Counsel for the University of Kerala, and the learned Standing Counsel for the Bar Council of India.

8. As stated above, from the perusal of the materials placed on record, we noticed that Exts.P8 and P9 medical certificates produced in the writ petition do not pertain to the illness of the appellant pleaded in the writ petition. In fact, Ext.P9 medical certificate is of another person. When this anomaly was pointed out, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it was due to an inadvertent mistake Exts.P8 and P9 documents were produced in the writ petition, and the correct documents are now produced as Annexures A1 and A2 along with I.A.No.2 of 2026. Though Exts.P8 and P9 documents are produced along with the writ petition in a casual manner, and no sufficient ground is stated in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.2 of 2026 to accept Annexures A1 and A2 documents as provided under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to do substantial justice to the appellant, we allow I.A.No.2 of 2026 and accept Annexures A1 and A2 documents on record.

9. While coming to the merits of the contentions raised by the appellant and the contesting respondents, that is, the College and University, we notice that in the pleadings, the appellant has not stated anything about the statutory provision that entitles the appellant to get condonation of the shortage of attendance, in order to facilitate her to appear for the 9th semester examination. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant had only 18.33 % of attendance during the 9th semester and taking into consideration of her illness and the non-conducting of sufficient number of classes, she ought to have been permitted to attend the examination by the respondents. The learned counsel vehemently submitted that at the place of 90 days classes ought to have been conducted in a semester as per the Bar Council of India Regulation, only 44 days of classes were conducted by the College. The reason stated by the College for non conducting of sufficient number of classes as centralised valuation camp at the College is proved as false by Annexure A3 reply dated 15.02.2026 submitted by the State Public Information Officer of the University stating that no such centralised valuation camp was held in the college of the appellant during the year 2025. Insofar as the claim of the appellant for condonation of the attendance is concerned, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Rojalini Parida v. University of Delhi [2025 KHC Online 3322] and that of the Apex Court in Amit Kumar v. Union of India [2026 (2) KHC SN 4].

10. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent would submit that it was not due to the conducting of centralised valuation in the College of the 1st respondent that the number of classes had to be reduced in the 9th semester; but it was due to the direction of the University due to the conducting of centralised valuation in other colleges and the deputation of the Teacher needed for the same, the number of classes was constrained to be reduced in the 9th semester. In total, 34 days were lost out of the 90 days classes ought to have been conducted in that semester. However, the appellant had attended only a few hours in certain subjects, and she had altogether 6.3 % of attendance during the 9th semester.

11. The learned  Standing Council for the Bar Council of India would submit that discussions are going on in the Bar Council regarding the reduction of the mandatory teaching hours to be attended by the students, and a decision pertaining to the same is yet to be taken.

12. The learned Standing Counsel for the University would submit that as per Statute 3(xxi) of Chapter 6 of the Kerala University First Statutes, 1977, it is the Syndicate that has to take a decision regarding relaxation of attendance. But, the appellant had not submitted any application before the University to permit her to attend the examination by relaxing the attendance criteria.

13. There is no dispute on the point that, as per the Regulations relating to the integrated five-year BBA, LLB course, each semester should consist of 90 instructional days having five hours per day. It is also admitted that in the college of the appellant, 34 such instructional days were lost due to various reasons, including the centralised valuation conducted by the University. It is also not in dispute that the percentage of actual attendance of classes by the appellant is only 6.38. After adding attendance of supplementary examinations for which the appellant had appeared during the 9th semester, her attendance increased only to 18.33 %. As per Clause 5 of the Regulations relating to the integrated five-year BBA, LLB course of the University of Kerala, no candidate shall be permitted to register for the end-semester examinations conducted by the University unless the Principal has certified that he/she has obtained not less than 75% of the attendance in each paper. The relaxation that can be recommended by the Principal is 10%. In this case, the aforesaid power of the Principal cannot aid the appellant, since the total percentage of her attendance is only 18.33 %, even after adding the attendance of supplementary examinations.

14. Statute 3(xxi) of Chapter 6 of the Kerala University First Statutes, 1977, which gives authority to the Syndicate of the University to permit a student to attend the examination without required number of attendance reads thus;

                  “(xxi) to exempt, by special order and on such conditions as the Syndicate may think fit, a candidate for a University examination from undergoing instruction in a college”.

15. From the above referred provision, it is clear that only the Syndicate of the University has the authority to permit the appellant to attend the examination of the 9th semester, by condoning the deficiency in the attendance. Therefore, in the absence of any such decision by the Syndicate, the respondents cannot be found fault in declining permission to the appellant to attend the 9th semester examination.

16. The impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge would show that the judgment in Rojalini Parida [2025 KHC Online 3322] now cited by the learned counsel for the appellant was considered by the learned Single Judge and differed with the views of the High Court of Delhi. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, we also find no circumstances to take a different view than that taken by the learned Single Judge. The judgment in Amit Kumar [2026 (2) KHC SN 4 ] of the Apex Court also will not come to the aid of the appellant, since the issues considered in that judgment are general issues, and not the specific issue pertaining to condonation of attendance for permitting a student to attend the examination, who did not even secure the bare minimum attendance in a semester.

17. Apart from the above, in the instant case, there is absence of pleadings in the writ petition narrating the difficulties faced by the appellant in securing the required attendance in the semester concerned, except raising some vague contentions regarding her illness and the non-conducting of sufficient number of classes by the college.

18. As far as the importance of the pleadings in the writ petition is concerned, in Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana [1988 (4) SCC 534] the Apex Court held that, when a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the counter affidavit, as the case may be, the Court will not entertain the point. The Apex Court held further that there is a distinction between a pleading under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and a writ petition or a counter affidavit. While in a pleading, i.e., a plaint or a written statement, the facts and not evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter affidavit not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it.

19. In Narmada Bachao Andolan v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2011 (7) SCC 639] a Three - Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that, it is a settled proposition of law that a party has to plead its case and produce/adduce sufficient evidence to  substantiate the averments made in the petition and in case the pleadings are not complete the Court is under no obligation to  entertain the pleas. Pleadings and particulars are required to enable the court to decide the rights of the parties in the trial. Thus, the pleadings are more to help the court in narrowing the controversy involved and to inform the parties concerned to the question(s) in issue, so that the parties may adduce appropriate evidence on the said issue. It is a settled legal proposition that, as a rule, relief not founded on the pleadings should not be granted. Therefore, a decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties. The object and purpose of  pleadings and issues is to ensure that the litigants come to trial with all issues clearly defined and to prevent cases being expanded or grounds being shifted during trial. If any factual or legal issue, despite having merit, has not been raised by the parties, the court should not decide the same as the opposite counsel does not have a fair opportunity to answer the line of reasoning adopted in that regard. Such a judgment may be violative of the principles of natural justice.

20. In the writ petition, the pleadings narrating the date- wise details of the absence of the appellant during the days the classes were conducted in the college and the condonable inability for her to attend the classes are absent. Moreover, as already stated, even the documents produced by the appellant along with the writ petition to show her illness are irrelevant documents and the relevant documents are produced only in the appellate stage, which are also insufficient to rule in favour of the appellant, by exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

21. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find no ground to hold the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge as perverse or patently illegal, which warrants interference by exercising appellate jurisdiction.

                  In the result, the writ appeal stands dismissed. However, we make it clear that dismissal of this writ appeal will not preclude the appellant from approaching the University with a proper request for a decision under Statute 3(xxi) of Chapter 6 of the Kerala University First Statutes, 1977, if she is so advised and the University from taking an appropriate decision therein in accordance with law.