POOJA KHANDELWAL v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI — 1997 DIGILAW 914 (DEL)

CYRIAC JOSEPH ( 1 ) THE petitioner is a student of B. A. (Phil.) Hons. IInd Year in indraprastha College for Women, which is affiliated to the University of Delhi. The respondents are (i) The University of Delhi, (ii) The Controller of Examinations, University of Delhi and (iii) The Principle of the indraprastha College for Women, Delhi. The challenge in the writ petition is against the action of Respondent No. 3 - Principal of the College in detaining the petitioner from appearing in the second year examination and refusing admission ticket on the ground of shortage of attendance. The main evers in the writ petition are for directions to Respondent No. 3 to condone the shortage of attendance, if any, and to issue admission ticket to the petitioner and to allow her to appear in the examination. ( 2 ) BY order dated 22-4-1997 the writ petition was admitted. On the same date the same date the following order was passed in CM 2833/97: "the respondents shall permit the petitioner to appear in the examination. This will, however, not confer any light on her to claim any relief on the basis of this interim order. The decision in the will petition will determine the issue of the appearance of the petitioner in the examination and result as a consequence thereof will be subject to the ultimate outcome of the petition. This application is disposed of in the above terms. "on the basis of the above order dated 22-4-1997 in CM 2833/97 the petitioner was permitted to appear in the examination subject to the final outcome of this writ petition. Hence it is necessary to decide whether the petitioner was eligible and entitled to appear in the examination for which admission ticket was denied to her. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner her attendance in the second year of B. A. (Phil.) Hons. Course was about 70% which is more man what is required under the Rules and hence Respondent No. 3 was not justified in not allowing the petitioner to appear in the examination. According to Respondent No. 3, though the petitioner had 69% attendance during the second year, her attendance during the first year was only 28% and consequently the combined attendance for both the years was less than the required minimum of 55% and hence she was ineligible to appear in the examination. According to Respondent No. 3, though the petitioner had 69% attendance during the second year, her attendance during the first year was only 28% and consequently the combined attendance for both the years was less than the required minimum of 55% and hence she was ineligible to appear in the examination. Hence it will be useful to refer to the relevant rules relating to the requirement of attendance. ( 4 ) AS per Section 4 (2) of the Delhi University Act, 1922 (hereinafter called the Act ) the University has the power to hold examinations and to grant degrees to persons who have pursued a course of study in the university or in any college. As per Section 30 of the Act, subject to the provisions of the Act and tne Statutes, the Ordinances may provide for the conduct of examinations. Under Section 31 of the Act the power to make Ordinances is vested in the Executive Council of the University. Ordinance VII made by the Executive Council deals with the conditions for admission to examinations. As per clause 1 (i) of Ordinance VII, no member of the University shall be admitted to any examination for a decree of the University other than a post graduate degree unless he has pursued a regular course of study for not less three academic years. Clause 2 (1) of the said Ordinance stipulates that no person shall be deemed to have pursued a regular course of study unless the Principal of his College is satisfied that the required condition is in respect of his instruction have been fulfilled. According to clause 2 (2) of the said Ordinance, the required conditions shall not be deemed to have been satisfied In respect of B. A. (Hons.) degree unless the candidate has attended not less than two-thirds of lectures and practical, separately delivered in his college for the course of study in each academic year. It is further provided that other conditions regarding attendance shall be as laid down in Appendix II of the said Ordinance. Clause 2 (1) and (2) of the said Ordinance is extracted below: "2. (1) No person shall be deemed to have pursued a regular course of study unless the Principal of his College/head of the Department concerned in the case of candidates for the B. A. (Pass), B. A. (Vocational Studies), B. Com (Pass), B. Sc. Clause 2 (1) and (2) of the said Ordinance is extracted below: "2. (1) No person shall be deemed to have pursued a regular course of study unless the Principal of his College/head of the Department concerned in the case of candidates for the B. A. (Pass), B. A. (Vocational Studies), B. Com (Pass), B. Sc. (General), B. A. (Honours), B. Com. (Honours), B. Sc. (Honours) Degree, the Principal School of Correspondence Courses and Continuing Education in the case of students registered with the school, and Head of the Department concerned in the case of candidates for any other Degree or Diploma or Certificate Examination is satisfied that the required conditions in respect of his instruction have been fulfilled. (2) The required conditions shall not be deemed to have been satisfied in respect of the following degrees unless the candidate has attended not less than two-thirds of lectures and practicals, separately, delivered in his College or the University, as the case may be, for the course of study in each academic year: B. A. (Pass) and (Honours) B. A. (Vocational Studies) B. Com. (Pass) and (Honours) B. A. (Honours - Music) B. Sc. (General) and (Honours) Provided that in the case of Honours Course and B. Sc (General) Course attendance as above will be required to be put in separately in the Main Subject in the case of Honours Course and in Group b subjects in the case of B. Sc. (General) Course and in the Qualifying/subsidiary Subjects in each academic year. Other conditions regarding attendance in respect of these courses shall be as laid down in Appendix II of this Ordinance. " ( 5 ) CLAUSE 2 (9) (a) of Ordinance VII provides that subject to the provisions of sub clauses (b) and (c), the Principal of a College may consider on the basis of the medical certificates produced, exceptionally hard cases of students who had fallen seriously ill or had met with an accident during the year disabling them from attending classes for a certain period, with a view to determining whether the lectures etc. , delivered during the said period, or a part thereof, could be excluded for purposes of calculation of attendance of the year and decide each case costs own merits. , delivered during the said period, or a part thereof, could be excluded for purposes of calculation of attendance of the year and decide each case costs own merits. Clause 2 (9) is extracted below:- "2 (9) (a) Subject to the provisions or sub-clauses (b) and (c): (i) In the case of a student who is selected as a member of the N. C. C. to participate in the annual N. C. C. Camps or is deputed to undertake Civil Defence work and allied duties or in the case of a student who is enrolled in the National Service Scheme and is deputed to various public assignments by or with the approval of the Head of the institution concerned or a student who is selected to participate in sports or other activities organised by the Inter-University Board or in national or international fixtures in games and sports approved by the Vice-Chancellor or a student who is required to represent the University at the Inter-University Youth Festival, or a student who is required to participate in periodical training in the Territorial Army or a student who is deputed by the College to take part in inter- College sports or fixtures, debates, seminars, symposia or social work projects or a student who is required to represent the College concerned in debates and other extra-curricular activities held in other Universities or such other activities approved by the Vice-chancellor for this purpose, in calculating the total number of lectures etc. , delivered in the College, or in the University, as the case may be, for his course of study in each academic year, the number of lecture etc. , in each subject delivered during the period of absence for that purpose shall not be taken into account. (ii) The Principal of a College may consider, on the basis of the Medical Certificates produced, exceptionally hard cases of students who had fallen seriously III or had met with an accident during the year disabling them from attending classes for a certain period, with a view to determining whether the lectures etc. , delivered during the said period, or a part thereof, could be excluded for purposes of calculation of attendance of the year and decide each case on its own merits. , delivered during the said period, or a part thereof, could be excluded for purposes of calculation of attendance of the year and decide each case on its own merits. (b) A College shall notify on the notice board the final attendance position of each of its students; within three days of the dispersal of the classes in the last session of the academic year. Not later than five days, thereafter, a student may, by an application to the Principal of the College, claim benefit of exclusion of lectures under sub-clause (a) above on grounds to be specified and accompanied by the relevant documents. All such applications submitted within time shall be considered and disposed of by the Principal of the College at least 3 days prior to the commencement of the examination in which the student is intending to appear. (c) The benefit of exclusion of lectures contemplated in categories : (i) or (ii) of sub-clause (a) above, either separately or jointly, shall in no case exceed 1/3 of the total number of lectures delivered. (d) In the case of a married woman student who is granted maternity leave, in calculating the total number of lectures delivered in the College or in the University, as the case may be, for her course of study in each academic year, the number of lecturers in each subject delivered during the period of her maternity leave shall not be taken into account: Provided that Post-graduate Degree students under the Faculty of Medical Sciences who apply for maternity leave either in I year or in II year, may be allowed the maternity leave for a period not exceeding 3 months in an academic year but such students will be required to complete the duration of the course as regular students as required in the Ordinance and the students will be permitted to submit the thesis or to take the written examination, as the case may be, in January instead of August that year. " ( 6 ) AS indicated in clause 2 of Ordinance VIl, the other conditions regarding attendance are laid down in Appendix II of the Ordinance, Clause 6 of Appendix II which contains those conditions regarding attendance, is extracted below: "6. " ( 6 ) AS indicated in clause 2 of Ordinance VIl, the other conditions regarding attendance are laid down in Appendix II of the Ordinance, Clause 6 of Appendix II which contains those conditions regarding attendance, is extracted below: "6. Attendance: Subject to the provisions of Ordinance VII -Conditions for Admission to Examinations - a candidate for the B. A. (Honours) Part I or Part II or Part III Examination shall not be deemed to have satisfied the required conditions of attendance unless he has attended, in the main subject, not less than two-thirds of the lectures and practicals, separately, held in the College in each academic year and not less than two-thirds of the lectures and practicals, separately, held in the subsidiary subjects (taken together) in which instruction is imparted in each year. Provided that a student of the I Year class or II Year class who does not fulfil the required conditions of attendance in subsidiary subject/s at the end of the I year and/or at the end of the II Year, shall not be detained in the 1/11 Year class, as the case may be, if otherwise eligible to proceed to the next higher class. Such a student will be eligible to appear at the examination in subsidiary subject/s concerned after putting in the requisite attendance during the subsequent year. Provided further that in the case of a subsidiary subject in which instruction is imparted in more than one year, a student who has attended not less than 40 per cent of the lectures and practicals, separately, in the said subject during the I year, may be allowed to appear at the examination in the subsidiary subject concerned at the end of the I year subject to his making of the deficiency in attendance of the I year during the II year class. Similarly, a student who offers such a subsidiary subject and falls short of attendance in the subject concerned during the II year, but has attended not less than 40 per cent of the lectures and practicals, separately, in the said subject during the II Year, may be allowed to appear at the examination in the subject concerned, if by combining the attendance of the II Year in that subject with the attendance previously put in by him in that subject, he makes up the deficiency. Provided further that a student of I year class who does not fulfil the required conditions of attendance as provided in the main clause above, but has attended, in the main subject, not less than 40 per cent of lectures and practicals, separately, held during the I Year class may at the discretion of the Principal of the College concerned be allowed to appear at the Part I examination; but such a candidate shall be required to make up the deficiency of lectures and practicals, as the case may be, of the I Year, during the II Year. Provided further that a student of the II Year class who does not fulfil the required conditions of attendance as above, but has attended in the main subject not less than 40 per cent of the lectures and practicals, separately, held during the 11 year class, may, at the discretion of the Principal of the College concerned, be allowed to appear at the Part II examination provided that he makes up the deficiency of the II Year by combining the attendance of the first year class. Provided further that a student of the II year class, who was short of attendance in the main subject at the end of the I Year class, but was allowed to appear at the I Year examination, subject to his making up the deficiency of attendance during li year, and who has not been able to make up the deficiency, as above, but has attended in the main subject, not less than 55% of the lectures and practicals, separately, held during the I Year Class and the II Year class, taken together, may, at the discretion of the Principal of the College concerned, be allowed to appear at the Part II Examination, subject to his making up the deficiency of the two years taken together, as above, during the III Year Class. Provided further that a student of the III Year class who does not, fulfil the required conditions of attendance as above, but has attended in the main subject, not less than 40 per cent of the lectures and practical, separately, held during the III Year class, shall be allowed to appear the Part III Examination, at if by combining the attendance of the III Year with the attendance of I and II Years, the candidate has put in two-thirds of attendance in the main subject, separately in lectures and practicals, held during the three years. Explanation: "1. A student transferred from a Pass Course to an Honours Course shall be required to put in the requisite attendance at lectures and practicals as aforesaid for the two courses taken together. 2. A student who has failed at the Part I or Part II or Part III Examination and has rejoined the I Year or II Year or III Year class, as the case may be, shall be required to put in the requisite attendance as above, afresh, and the attendance previously put in by him for the respective year will not be taken into account. " ( 7 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, her attendance in the first year was 55 out of 193. According to the counter affidavit of Respondent No. 3, the actual number of classes attended by the petitioner during the first year was 55 and the total number of classes taken was 239. However, she was given exemption in respect of 46 classes on the basis of the medical certificates produced by her. After excluding those 46 classes her attendance was reckoned as 55 out of 193 i. e. about 28%. Thus there is no dispute regarding the petitioner s attendance in the first year. As per clause 6 of Appendix II of Ordinance VII quoted above, the petitioner was required to attend not less than two-thirds (66%) of the lectures and practicals separately. Since the petitioner had only about 28% attendance in the first year, she did not satisfy the required conditions of attendance. As per clause 6 of Appendix II of Ordinance VII quoted above, the petitioner was required to attend not less than two-thirds (66%) of the lectures and practicals separately. Since the petitioner had only about 28% attendance in the first year, she did not satisfy the required conditions of attendance. However, as per the 3rd proviso to clause 6, a student of first year class who does not fulfil the required conditions of attendance as provided in the main clause may, at the discretion of the Principal of the College concerned, be allowed to appear at the Part I examination if he has attended not less than 40% of lectures and practicals, separately. But such a candidate shall be required to make up such deficiency in lectures and practicals, as the case may be, of the first year in the second year. As per the 5th proviso to clause 6, a student of the second year class who was short of attendance in the main subject at the end of the first year class but was allowed to appear at the first year examination subject to his making up the deficiency of attendance during the second year and who has not been able to make up the deficiency but has attended in the main subject not less than 55% of the lectures and practicals separately held during the first year classes and the second year classes taken together, may at the discretion of the Principal of the college concerned be allowed to appear at Part II examination subject to his making us the deficiency of the two years taken together as above during the third year classes. Even though the petitioner had not attended two-thirds of the classes in the first year the Principal, apparently exercising her discretion under the third proviso to clause 6, allowed the petitioner to appear in the first year examination on condition that she should make up the deficiency of attendance of the first year during the second year as provided in the 3rd proviso to clause 6. But even according to the attendance during the second year was only 70%. Hence her attendance for the first year and the second year taken together was only about 49% i. e. much short of the required 66%. But even according to the attendance during the second year was only 70%. Hence her attendance for the first year and the second year taken together was only about 49% i. e. much short of the required 66%. In other words the petitioner failed to make up the deficiency of the first year during the second year and became ineligible to appear in the second year examining. Since the petitioner did not have at least 55% attendance if the first year and the second year classes are taken together, the Principal of the college could not have exercised the discretion given to the Principal under the 5th proviso to clause 6, to allow the petitioner to appear in the second year examination subject to the condition of making up the deficiency during the third year. Thus the petitioner was not eligible or entitled to appear in the second year examination due to shortage of attendance. Hence Respondent No. 3 was justified in denying admission ticket to the petitioner to appear in second year examination.- ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the shortage of attendance during the first year had already been condoned and that the petitioner was allowed to write the first year examination without any condition that she should make up the deficiency of the first year during in the second year. According to him, there was no justification for clubbing the attendance of the first and the second years and since the petitioner had 70% attendance in the second year she was eligible and entitled to appear in the second year examination. The above contention has to be rejected in view of the facts admitted in the writ petition and the provisions contained in Ordinance VII and Appendix II. The averments in paragraph 13 of the writ petition are extracted below: "13. That because of short of attendance, the respondent No. 3 college principal with-held the admission ticket of the petitioner, but when medical certificates, prescriptions, treatments etc. were submitted to the principal of the college, the principal of the college was pleased to exercise her discretionary powers and while granting the permissible concessions, was pleased to allow the petitioner to appear in the 1st year examination of her course. were submitted to the principal of the college, the principal of the college was pleased to exercise her discretionary powers and while granting the permissible concessions, was pleased to allow the petitioner to appear in the 1st year examination of her course. "hence the petitioner has admitted that in spits shortage of attendance she was allowed to appear in the first year examination by the Principal in exercise of the discretionary powers of the Principal. As pointed out earlier in this judgment the petitioner was given exemption by the Principal under clause 2 (9) (ii) of Ordinance VII in respect of 46 classes on the basis of medical certificates produced and after excluding those 46 classes in calculating the attendance, her attendance in the first year was only about 28%. However, she was allowed to appear in the first year examination in view of the 3rd Proviso to Clause 6 in Appendix II though strictly speaking she was not entitled to the protection of the 3rd Proviso to Clause 6 as she did not have at least 40% attendance. Under the provisions of the 3rd Proviso to Clause 6 in Appendix II, the Principal could allow the petitioner to appear in the examination only on condition that the petitioner would make up the deficiency during the second year. Having availed of the benefit under a provision, the petitioner cannot escape the liability under such provision. ( 9 ) IT was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was detained from appearing in the examination "without giving any opportunity of hearing" and that the action of Respondent No. 3 violated the principles of natural justice. According to the learned counsel, Respondent No. 3 withheld the admission ticket of the petitioner on the recommendation of the Attendance Committee and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to explain her case. There is no merit in this contention in view of the averments in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the writ petition which are extracted below:- "21. That the petitioner was not aware of the illegal designs and decisions of the respondent No. 3 till the 2nd of April, 1997. There is no merit in this contention in view of the averments in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the writ petition which are extracted below:- "21. That the petitioner was not aware of the illegal designs and decisions of the respondent No. 3 till the 2nd of April, 1997. The moment the petitioner came to know of the with-holding of ticket, she approached the respondent No. 3 and on her asking, produced her medical treatment certificate, a true copy of which is filed herewith and marked as Annexure A-17 to this petition. 22. That the respondent No. 3 was convinced with the genuineness of the petitioner s matter. The petitioner was assured of due consideration and was called and given opportunity to present her explanations, which the petitioner and her father gave on between 4th and 8th April, 1997. In the mean time, some more students numbering about 12/13 in IInd year and about the same number in 1st year courses of the college were also detained. "the above averments in the writ petition clearly show that the petitioner was called by respondent No. 3 and was given opportunity to present her explanation and that the petitioner and her father gave the explanations between 4th and 8th April, 1997 and that the petitioner produced a medical certificate (Annexure A-17 ). In the counter statement of Respondent No. 3 it is specifically stated that the petitioner and her father had been informed about the shortage of attendance throughout the academic year from time to time and that the petitioner s attendance record was put up on the notice board on 27-3-1997 and 31-3-1997 and that the petitioner and her father were heard by the Attendance Committee on 2-4-1997 when Annexure- A 17 medical certificate was produced by the petitioner. It is further stated in the counter statement of Respondent No. 3 that the petitioner was repeatedly warned about the short fall in attendance and its consequences. Her parents also were informed about it during the academic session. However, her parents did not come forward to meet the teachers during the academic session 1996-97. Nor was the college staff informed about the ailment which is now sought to be made a Justification for lack of attendance. The Attendance Committee consists of eight persons of the staff (including the Principal and the Teacher In-Charge of the department to which the student belongs ). Nor was the college staff informed about the ailment which is now sought to be made a Justification for lack of attendance. The Attendance Committee consists of eight persons of the staff (including the Principal and the Teacher In-Charge of the department to which the student belongs ). The list of students to be detained was prepared by the Attendance Committee and the list was placed before the Staff Council consisting of about 100 teachers, for ratification. It is only thereafter that the list was put up on the notice board and the parents were heard. It is also stated that the original list contained 28 names and after hearing the students/parents, only 26 students were detained. In the light of the above mentioned specific averments in the writ petition and the counter statement of Respondent No. 3, the petitioner s contention regarding violation of principles of natural justice is liable to be rejected. ( 10 ) ANOTHER contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that various colleges of the University of Delhi are not following a uniform policy, in the matter of retirement of attendance. According to Respondent No. 3 the college is governed by the provisions of Ordinance VII and Appendix II and hence Respondent No. 3 is bound to enforce those provisions. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 also pointed out that the petitioner cannot challenge the respondent s action in enforcing the rules regarding attendance on the ground that those rules are not strictly enforced in other colleges. I am also of the view that this Court cannot find fault with Respondent No. 3 for enforcing the provisions in the Ordinance of the University even if those provisions are not being enforced by the authorities of other collages. Such violations, if any, of the provisions and leniency shown by authorities of other colleges will not confer a right on the petitioner to appear in the examination despite her ineligibility under the rules. ( 11 ) IT is alleged in the writ petition that even Respondent No. 3 is not implementing the rules regarding attendance in a uniform manner. The example of a student by name Miss Stuti Bhandari is pointed out. It is alleged that even though she had only 27% attendance in the first year she was permitted to appear in the examination. The example of a student by name Miss Stuti Bhandari is pointed out. It is alleged that even though she had only 27% attendance in the first year she was permitted to appear in the examination. Respondent No. 3 has categorically denied the allegation that the rules are not implemented uniformly. It is also stated in the counter statement of Respondent No. 3 that Miss Stuti Bhandari had submitted medical certificates within seven days of Joining after absence. The medical certificates showed that she had sustained injuries on the hand due to a bus accident. However, while calculating her attendance the medical certificates had not been taken into account and her attendance was shown as 37%. After the list was published on 27-3-1997 she produced further document in the form of MRI reports for the period. Hence she was allowed to appear in the examination after giving credit to the certificates and documents produced by her and after excluding the days of absence covered by the medical certificates. It is also pointed out in the counter statement that the petitioner who had only 28% attendance in the first year and was allowed to appear in the examination cannot complain about Miss Stuti Bandari who, even according to the petitioner, had 37% attendance. In the light of the above averments of Respondent No. 3 I am of the view that the petitioner has not substantiated the allegation that Respondent No. 3 is not implemention the ruled uniformly. ( 12 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner was entitled to more than 28% attendance in the first year and more than 70% attendance in the second year. However, there is no admissible material on record to support and substantiate the above contentions. In the writ petition the petitioner had not raised any dispute regarding the correctness of the attendance of the first year or the second year. The dispute is apparently raised only in the rejoinder to the counter statement of Respondent No. 3 and that too without any supporting material. In the first year (1995-96) the petitioner was shown to have 28% attendance and in the second year (1996-97) she was shown to have 70% attendance, it is specifically stated in the counter statement of Respondent No. 3 that the above mentioned percentage of attendance was arrived at after taking into account the medical certificates produced. In the first year (1995-96) the petitioner was shown to have 28% attendance and in the second year (1996-97) she was shown to have 70% attendance, it is specifically stated in the counter statement of Respondent No. 3 that the above mentioned percentage of attendance was arrived at after taking into account the medical certificates produced. It is specifically averred by Respondent No. 3 that out of the total 239 classes during the first year the petitioner actually attended only 55 classes. However, she was given exemption in respect of 46 classes on the basis of the medical certificates produced by her and consequently her attendance was reckoned as 55 out of 193 (239-46 ). Having not disputed or challenged the calculation of attendance made and notified at the end of the academic year 1995-96 the petitioner cannot be allowed to rake up a dispute in the matter at this stage. Moreover the learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out the days or the period of absence for which the petitioner was entitled to exemption but was denied. He could not also point out the medical certificates which were not taken into account by Respondent no. 3. During the second year (1996-97) the petitioner had not produced any medical certificate except the one produced on 2-4-1997, a copy of which is produced as Annexure A-17 to the writ petition. Though the photocopy of the medical certificate produced with the writ petition carries the date 2-4-1997, the original produced before Respondent No. 3 did not carry any date. It is admitted in the rejoinder that the said medical certificate was not dated and that the date 2-4-1997 was put by the counsel. A perusal of the said medical certificate shows that it was issued by a Homoeopathic consultant. The undated certificate only indicates that the petitioner was suffering from some ailment for which she was under the treatment of the person who issued the certificate, that the petitioner had developed frequent headache due to such ailment during 1996-97 and that she required further treatment for another year for complete recovery. According to the learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 such a vague and undated medical certificate could not have been given credit by any responsible Principal for the purposes of granting exemption from the requirement of attendance. According to the learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 such a vague and undated medical certificate could not have been given credit by any responsible Principal for the purposes of granting exemption from the requirement of attendance. I am inclined to accept this submission of the learned counsel for Respondent No. 3. ( 14 ) UNDER clause 2 (9) (a) (ii) of Ordinance VII the Principal can consider, on the basis of the medical certificates produced, exceptionally hard cases of students who had fallen seriously ill or had met with an accident during the year disabling them from attending classes for a certain period with a vail to determine whether the lectures etc. , delivered during the said period or a part thereof can be excluded for the purposes of calculation of attendance during that year and can decide each case on its merits. It implies that: (I) Consideration shall be on the basis of the medical certificate produced: (ii) The power can be exercised only in exceptionally hard cases where the illness or the a accident disabled the student from attending classes; (iii) The period for which the student was disabled to attend classes shall be specified; (iv) The Principal can and has to consider the merits of each case. In the year 1995-96 admittedly the medical certificates produced by the petitioner were taken into account and exemption was granted in respect of 46 classes on the basis of the medical certificates. In the year 1996-97 the only certificate produced by the petitioner before Respondent No. 3 was the one which was produced on 2-4-1997. The said undated certificate did not disclose whether the illness of the petitioner disabled her from attending classes. The certificate did not mention the period during which the petitioner was disabled from attending classes. The Attendance Committee and the Principal on a consideration of the case on merits found that the said certificate was unacceptable for granting the benefit under clause 2 (9) (a) (ii) of Ordinance VII. The said decision of Respondent No. 3 or the Attendance Committee cannot be held to be wrong, arbitrary or illegal. It cannot be said that the Principal did not exercise his discretion properly. The said decision of Respondent No. 3 or the Attendance Committee cannot be held to be wrong, arbitrary or illegal. It cannot be said that the Principal did not exercise his discretion properly. The discretionary power given to the Principal under Clause 2 (9) (a) (ii) authorises him to consider the merits of each case and in that process to consider also the genuiness or admissibility or adequateness of the medical certificates produced. The mere production of any medical certificate does not oblige the Principal to grant the benefit. In my view, no reasonable person could have considered the medical certificate produced by the petitioner on 2-4-1997 as sufficient for granting the benefit under Clause 2 (9) (a) (ii ). ( 15 ) ANNEXURES A-1 to A-15 produced by the petitioner along with the writ petition are medical documents relating the period prior to 21-11-1989 and they had not been produced before Respondent No. 3. They cannot be taken into account for deciding whether the petitioner was disabled from attending classes during 1995- 96 or 1996-97. Along with the rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has produced what is described as "a rough record showing dates of her going to college but due to severe ailment and headache could attend one or sometimes hardly two classes in a day. " I am clearly of the view that no reliance can be placed on the said document produced by the petitioner. ( 16 ) IT is also necessary to refer to the conduct of the petitioner as pointed out in the counter statement of Respondent No. 3. The requirement regarding attendance was brought to the notice of each student through a pamphlet known as "ins and Outs" issued by the colleges to each student. During the academic year 1996-97 itself two written intimations were sent to the guardians/parents of 300 students who were likely to fall short of attendance. Those intimations were sent to the father of the petitioner also. The said students (including the petitioner) were called individually time and again by the teachers and were apprised of their attendance position and were warned to improve their record so that they would not be detained. Written acknowledgments in the form of undertakings were also secured. Such undertakings were given also by the petitioner. A photocopy of one such undertaking is produced as Annexure R-5. Written acknowledgments in the form of undertakings were also secured. Such undertakings were given also by the petitioner. A photocopy of one such undertaking is produced as Annexure R-5. The undertaking signed by the petitioner on 7-2-1997 reads thus: "i have been given details of my attendance for the year 1996 97. I realise that I am very much short of 66% attendance required by the University. I undertake to attend all my classes in the coming months to make up the shortage. I understand that I will not be allowed to sit for the annual examination to be held in April, 1997 if I do not have the required 66% attendance. "the petitioner s name and signature dated 7-2-1997 appear at serial No. 10 in the document. Similar undertakings were given by the petitioner at least on three earlier occasions also as seen from the documents produced as Annexure R-5. Two of those documents also show that the petitioner had received a letter for parents requesting them to meet the Principal, In the rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has not denied the fact of giving the undertakings and has not disputed the genuineness of the above mentioned documents. Inspite of all these, the parents of the petitioner did not care to meet the teachers during the session 1996- 97 or inform the college about her ailment till she was detained from appearing in the examination, it is also stated in the counter statement of Respondent No. 3 that the petitioner along with her father and five male students had forcibly entered the campus of the college on 8-4-1997 and gheraoed the teachers demanding the petitioner should be given roll number/admission ticket. This was inspite of the fact that on the same date University examinations in respect of B. A. (Pass) Course had commenced. The examination had to be delayed by one hour and ten minutes due to the disturbance caused by the Petitioner and those who came with her. The situation was cleared only when about 200 examinees protested and asked the trouble makers to leave the place the petitioner herself has produced as Annexure A-20 a copy of the report in the "hindustan Times" of 10th April, 1997. The situation was cleared only when about 200 examinees protested and asked the trouble makers to leave the place the petitioner herself has produced as Annexure A-20 a copy of the report in the "hindustan Times" of 10th April, 1997. From the said report produced by the petitioner also, it would appear that there could be substance in the allegation made by Respondent No. 3 regarding the incident of 8th April, 1997 despite the denial by the petitioner. The facts and circumstances stated above do not in any way help to persuade this Court to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioner. ( 17 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Miss Kumkum Khanna and others Vs. The Mother Acquinas and another reported in ILR (1976) 1 Delhi 31 to contend that the impugned action of Respondent No. 3 detaining the petitioner from appearing in the examination is liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. Having carefully considered the above mentioned judgment I am of the view that the said judgment cannot support the case of the petitioner the Principal bound to hear a student before proventing him from appearing in the examination on the ground of shortage of attendance and that natural justice requires such a hearing. As already noted the petitioner had been periodically informed of the position regarding attendance and had been warned about the possibility of being detained if she did not have the minimum required attendance. Undertakings also had been taken from the petitioner to make up the shortage. According to Respondent No. 3 the classes during 1996-97 came to an end on 21-3-1997 and the list of 28 students who were short of attendance was displayed on the notice board on 27- 3-1997 and 31-3-1997. The petitioner and her father were heard by the attendance committee on 2-4-1997 when the petitioner produced a medical certificate. Thereafter the Attendance Committee which included the Principal decided to detain the petitioner. Out of the 28 students who were short of attendance, 26 students (including the petitioner) were detained and two students were allowed to appear in the examination. The petitioner and her father were heard by the attendance committee on 2-4-1997 when the petitioner produced a medical certificate. Thereafter the Attendance Committee which included the Principal decided to detain the petitioner. Out of the 28 students who were short of attendance, 26 students (including the petitioner) were detained and two students were allowed to appear in the examination. Apart from the above averments in the counter statement of Respondent No. 3, the petitioner herself has admitted in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the writ petition that she was given a hearing by Respondent No. 3. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, it is clear that before finally detaining the petitioner she was given sufficient opportunity of being heard and that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice. ( 18 ) IT is also necessary to point out that after the judgment in the case of Miss Kumkum Khanna and others (supra) changes have been effected in the rules regarding attendance. Hence what is to be considered is whether the present rules have been complied with. When the case of Miss Kumkum Khanna and others arose, there was no reference in clause 2 (9) (c) [present Clause 2 (9) (a) (ii)] of Ordinance VII to the production of medical certificate whereas now under clause 2 (9) (a) (ii) the Principal of a college may consider exceptionally hard cases of students "on the basis of medical certificate produced. " Similarly the provisions contained in the present clause 2 (9) (b) were not there earlier. Now, as per clause 2 (9) (b) of Ordinance VII a college is required to notify on the notice board the final attendance position of each of its students within three days of the dispersal of the classes in the last session of the academic year and not later than five days thereafter a student may by an application to the Principal of the College claim benefit of exclusion of lectures under sub-clause (3) of clause 2 (9) on grounds to be specified and accompanied by the relevant documents. All such applications submitted within time shall be considered and disposed of by the Principal of the College at least three days prior to the commencement of the examination in which the student is intending to appear. All such applications submitted within time shall be considered and disposed of by the Principal of the College at least three days prior to the commencement of the examination in which the student is intending to appear. The spirit of the judgment in Miss Kumkum Khanna and others (supra) has thus been incorporated in the provisions of Clause 2 (9) (b) of Ordinance VII. In the present case, the list of students who were short of attendance was displayed on 27-3-1997 and 31-3-97. The details of attendance of each of those students were also shown in the list. A photocopy of the list been produced by the petitioner along with the rejoinder affidavit. The classes had come to an end on 21-3-1997. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 pointed out that 22nd and 23rd March, 1997 were Saturday and Sunday respectively and 24th March, 1997 was a holiday on account of "holi". The next two days, namely, 25th and 26th March, 1997 were taken for preparation of the last which was done in consultation with the Attendance Committee and the Staff Council. The list containing the names of the 28 students who were short of attendance and their position of attendance was displayed on notice board on 27th and 31st March, 1997. Having noticed the list displayed on the notice board the petitioner and her father represented to Respondent No. 3 and they were heard by the Attendance Committee which included the Principal also. It was thereafter that the final decision to detain the petitioner was taken. It is true that the notice published on the notice board on 27-3-1997 stated; "the following students are detained from sitting for the April/may 1997 examinations, due to their being short of the required attendance. " It would have been better if the notice stated that the list contained the names of students proposed to be detained. At the same time representations made pursuant to the notice were duly considered and the students were heard by Respondent No. 3. In two cases the decision was reversed after hearing the students. Hence the list published on 27/31-3-1997 was based on a decision which was treated as provisional. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the list was published only on 31-3-1997 and not 27-3-1997. In two cases the decision was reversed after hearing the students. Hence the list published on 27/31-3-1997 was based on a decision which was treated as provisional. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the list was published only on 31-3-1997 and not 27-3-1997. Even it the list was published only on 31-3-1997, there may be only a technical defect that the list was not published within three days of dispersal of the classes. Still the petitioner did make her representation to Respondent No. 3 and she was heard arid allowed to produce the medical certificate on 2-4-1997. The examinations commenced only on 9-4-1997. No prejudice was caused by the alleged delay in publishing the list. Thus, there has been substantial compliance with the provisions contained in clause 2 (9) (b) of Ordinance VII regarding notification of the final attendance position of the students and giving them opportunity to make representation. Hence any interference by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not warranted in this case. ( 19 ) THE last submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Clause 2 (9) (a) of Ordinance VII being a beneficial provision for the students, it should be liberally interpreted and that a sympathetic view may be taken since the petitioner has already appeared in the examination on the basis of the interim order passed by this Court. Regarding the first aspect I may observe that any ambiguity in Clause 2 (9) (a) was not pointed out and there is no controversy regarding the construction or interpretation to be given to the said clause. The controversy is whether full benefit under Clause 2 (a) was given to the petitioner or not. I have already held that the petitioner has been given the benefits due to him under the said Clause. In proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot interfere with a decision taken by Respondent No. 3 in exercise of his discretionary power under Clause 2 (9) (a) (ii) of Ordinance VII unless the said decision is shown to be patently illegal or arbitrary or malafide. The petitioner could not show that the impugned decision was illegal or arbitrary or malafide. In The University of Mysore Vs. The petitioner could not show that the impugned decision was illegal or arbitrary or malafide. In The University of Mysore Vs. C. D. Govinda Rao and another, AIR 1965 SC 491 , the Hon ble Supreme Court cautioned that the Courts should hesitate to express a definite opinion on the academic matters and that the Courts should be slow to interfere with the opinion expressed by the experts. It was also pointed out that it would normally be wise and safe for the Courts to leave the decision of academic matters to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the Courts generally can be. In Bhushan Uttam Khare Vs. Dean, B. J. Medical College and others, (1992) 2 SCC 220 , the Hon ble Supreme Court reitereted that in deciding the matters relating to orders passed by authorities of educational institutions, the Court should normally be very slow to pass orders in its Jurisdictions because matters falling within the jurisdiction of educational authorities should normally be left to their decision and the Court should interfere with them only when it thinks it must do so in the interest of justice. ( 20 ) REGARDING the second aspect I am of the view that sympathy cannot be shown merely because this Court by an interim order allowed the petitioner to appear in the examination subject to the outcome of the writ petition. If a student approaches the Court at the last moment and if the Court, realising that there is no time to decide on the eligibility and entitlement of the student to appear in the examination, permits him to appear in the examination subject to the final decision in the writ petition, relief in the writ petition, should be granted or denied on the basis of his eligibility and entitlement to appear in the examination and not on the basis that he has already appeared in the examination on a provisional basis. Otherwise it will result in miscarriage of justice. In this context it is useful to remember what the Hon bie Supreme Court said in Guru Nanak Dev University Vs. Parminder Kumar Bansal and another, AIR 1993 SC 2412 . Otherwise it will result in miscarriage of justice. In this context it is useful to remember what the Hon bie Supreme Court said in Guru Nanak Dev University Vs. Parminder Kumar Bansal and another, AIR 1993 SC 2412 . In that case the High Court had by its interim order directed admission of the respondent to the internship Course with effect from 1st of April 1992 on which date, admittedly he did not possess the required eligibility as he had not passed the M. B. B. S. examination. Pursuant to the interim order the respondent was admitted to the Internship Course. Thereafter by the final order dated 27-8-1992, the High court as a logical corollary and consequence of the implementation of the interim order, directed that the internship be regularised. The university challenged the said final order of the High Court by filing appeal in the Supreme Court. While allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the High Court, the Hon ble Supreme Court observed thus: "we are afraid that this kind of administration of interlocutory remedies, more guided by sympathy quite often wholly misplaced, does no service to anyone. From the series of orders that keep coming before us in academic matters, we find that loose, ill-conceived sympathy masquerades as interlocutory justice exposing judicial discretion to the criticism of degenerating into private benevolence. This is subversive of academic discipline, or whatever is left of it, leading to serious impasse in academic life. Admissions cannot be ordered without regard to the eligibility of the candidates. Decisions on matters relevant to be taken into account at the interlocutory stage cannot be deferred or decided later when serious complications might ensue from the interim order itself. In the present case, the High Court was apparently moved by sympathy for the candidates than by an accurate assessment of even the prima facie legal position. Such orders cannot be allowed to stand. The Courts should not embarrass academic authorities by itself taking over their functions. "in my view, having found that the petitioner in this case was not eligible or entitled to appear in the examination it will not be proper to regularise his appearance in the examination pursuant to the interim order passed in this case. Misplaced or illconceived sympathy at the final stage can be subversive of a academic discipline leading to serious impasse in academic life. Misplaced or illconceived sympathy at the final stage can be subversive of a academic discipline leading to serious impasse in academic life. ( 21 ) ACCORDING to the New Lexicon Webster s Dictionary, education means "instruction or training by which people (generally young) learn to develop and use their mental, moral and physical powers. " According to the World Book Encyclopedia, education in its broadest sense refers to the ways in which people learn skills and gain knowledge and understanding about the world and about themselves. The ways of learning are generally divided into three types - formal, informal and non-formal. formal education is instruction given in schools and colleges. In this type of education, the people in charge of a school or college decide what to teach and learners then study those things under the direction of teachers. Learners are expected to come to school or college regularly and on time, to work at about the same speed as their classmates and to pass tests to show how well they have progressed. At the end of the year, successful learners move upto the next level - that is to the next standard, form or grade. In the end, they may earn a diploma, a certificate or a degree as mark of their success over the years. Thus a formal education in a college necessarily involves learning and training under the direction of teachers and it envisages that the learners should come to the college regularly and on time. That is why the experts who formulated the policy and framed the rules in the first Respondent University, have made minimum attendance an essential condition for eligibility to appear in the examination. Having regard to the possible contingencies and circumstances, the rules also provide for dealing with exceptionally hard cases subject to certain reasonable conditions and limitations. Persuaded by sympathy, the Court should not further dilute or relax the requirements prescribed by the experts in the field. If the Court did so, it will amount to an unwarranted interference in academic matters and it will not be in public interest. It may also be pointed out that the quality or worth of education consists not only in the marks obtained in the examination held at the end of the course. If the Court did so, it will amount to an unwarranted interference in academic matters and it will not be in public interest. It may also be pointed out that the quality or worth of education consists not only in the marks obtained in the examination held at the end of the course. It consists also in the human qualities, the culture and the social outlook one acquires and the development of his personality through living with other students in the college as a community, constant interaction with teachers and other students and active participation in co-curricular activities. Hence unless a student attends the college regularly, he cannot get proper education. Therefore, it is in the interest of the student himself that he is asked to repeat the course to enable him to attend at least the required minimum number of classes. ( 22 ) IN view of what has been stated above there is no merit in the writ petition and hence it is dismissed. No order as to costs.