Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 797 (MAD)

K. Manonmani v. The Registrar & Another

2002-08-09

P.K.MISRA

body2002
Judgment :- This writ petition has been filed to quash the order of the second respondent date 14.2.2002 informing the petitioner to repeat the field work of I year M.S.W. programme during the academic year 2002-2003 and for a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue II year M.S.W. programme. 2. The facts of the case giving rise to the present writ petition briefly stated are as follows :- The petitioner after completion of her graduation in Sociology, applied for M.S.W. programme in Madras School of Social Work for the academic year 2001-2003 and she was admitted in the said course. As per the norms, to complete the first year, such a student is required to to field work including 40 days, i.e. hours of concurrent field work. The petitioner had joined Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board for doing the aforesaid field work. During the period of concurrent field work, the petitioner could not attend field work for a few days due to entric fever and subsequent relapses and thereafter she joined the field work. However, on 14.2.2002, the second respondent issued a letter indicating that the petitioner had lost 35% of field work days with regard to concurrent field work of M.S.W. programme and therefore, she was required to repeat the concurrent field work programme during the academic year 2002-2003 and only thereafter she would be permitted to undergo II year of M.S.W. programme. The petitioner on 6.2.2002 gave a letter indicating about 10 days of absence by calculating Christmas and Ponal holidays along with working days and subsequently again she wrote another letter on 27.3.2002 indicating that she had missed only 5 days of field work and she should be allowed to attend viva-voce to be held on 11.4.2002. As per the Rules, if a student misses the field work upto 20%, can be permitted to compensate for the missed days by working on other days, but the petitioner has been deprived of such an opportunity. The petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to permit her to complete the field work and continue in II year of M.S.W. programme. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the second respondent denying the allegations made in the writ petition. The petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to permit her to complete the field work and continue in II year of M.S.W. programme. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the second respondent denying the allegations made in the writ petition. It has been indicated in the counter that on her own showing, the petitioner had missed 10 days of field work and since the absence was for a period of about 35%, as per the Rules, there was no scope of condoning the absence of the petitioner. Even the Medical Certificate furnished by the petitioner regarding her illness has been doubted in the counter. 4. Subsequently, an affidavit has been filed by the Supervisor in charge of the field work. It is stated in the affidavit that the petitioner fall short of attendance in doing field work and accordingly she was not allowed to complete the field work. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has placed reliance upon a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 1998 Writ L.R. 23 (VICE CHANCELLOR, TAMIL NADU Dr. M.G.R. MEDICAL UNIVERSITY, GUINDY, MADRAS & OTHERS Vs. VASANTHI SELVARAJU AND OTHERS)indicating that in the matters relating to Rules and Regulations of the Universities, particularly regarding Educational matters, the Court should be very slow to interfere with the orders passed or otherwise there may be a fall in the education standard. 6. Even though the petitioner has now tried to explain away her absence for 5 days, her own application filed earlier clearly indicates about her absence for 10 to 11 days. If such absence is considered, there is no escape from the conclusion that the petitioner has fallen short of the required percentage of the field work to be undertaken. It is true that unfortunately the petitioner had fallen ill and had relapses (even though such assertion has been faintly denied, I have no reason to disbelieve the assertion of the petitioner). In the present case, the absence of the petitioner for more than 20% is fortified by her earlier application before the authorities as well as the affidavit filed by the Supervisor. The subsequent explanation of the petitioner that her absence was only for 5 days and Christmas and Pongal holidays have been erroneously included cannot be justified. 7. In the present case, the absence of the petitioner for more than 20% is fortified by her earlier application before the authorities as well as the affidavit filed by the Supervisor. The subsequent explanation of the petitioner that her absence was only for 5 days and Christmas and Pongal holidays have been erroneously included cannot be justified. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merits in the writ petition and the same is dismissed subject to the observation that the petitioner should be permitted to do necessary field work required for the first year during the academic year 2002-2003 and if any field work days have been missed due to pendency of the writ petition, opportunity may be given to the petitioner to complete the same by undertaking compensatory field work. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.15934 & 27308 of 2002 are closed.