Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 121 (MAD)

R. Karthik v. Dean & Others

2005-01-28

K.P.SIVASUBRAMANIAM

body2005
Judgment :- The petitioner prays for mandamus to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner herein bearing Registration No.52011352 undergoing the medical course at the first respondent institution, to sit and write the Second M.B.B.S Degree Examination Revised (Non-Semester) Regulation to be commenced from First February, 2005 and the practical examinations to be conducted thereafter. 2. The short facts which are sufficient for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows. The petitioner who was admitted to the first year course, was suspended on 30.12.2003 for various serious allegations of ragging and for indulging in sexual harassment etc., 3. The petitioner filed W.P.620 of 2004 and by order dated 16.04.2004, Mr.A.Kulasekaran, J. after going through the mutual submissions, ultimately disposed of the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order of suspension on condition that the petitioner and his father shall file an affidavit of apology to the Dean, the first respondent herein within a period of seven days from the order. 4. Now the petitioner is said to be restrained from appearing for the examinations on the ground that he has not fulfilled the minimum required attendance. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the student cannot be blamed for the lack of attendance and as a result of the order of this Court, setting aside the order of suspension, it is deemed that he has the requisite attendance. The petitioner is gravely affected and put to serious loss and hardship in not being allowed to sit for the second year Examination. 6. Mr.Vellaisamy, learned counsel for the University strenuously contends that the petitioner was suspended for very grave offences of ragging and sexual harassment and should in fact be given punishment of imprisonment. However, the College for its own reasons, has not filed any appeal against the order of the learned Judge. Even otherwise, learned counsel contends that there is no power for the University to condone the lack of attendance. 7. I have considered the submissions of both sides. It is true that the nature of the allegations against the petitioner which led to the suspension of the petitioner are very grave in nature. If the charges against the petitioner had been properly established, then he does not deserve to be continued on the roll of the College/ University. 7. I have considered the submissions of both sides. It is true that the nature of the allegations against the petitioner which led to the suspension of the petitioner are very grave in nature. If the charges against the petitioner had been properly established, then he does not deserve to be continued on the roll of the College/ University. However, the learned single judge went into the issue in a very detailed manner and ultimately set aside the order of suspension. 8. Nothing prevented even the University from filing an appeal against the said order by applying for leave to file the appeal, if the University felt that the petitioner deserves to be punished. Admittedly the same has not been done and as on date, the order setting aside the suspension has become final. 9. In the said background, the question which arises for consideration is as to whether the student should be penalised as a result of suspension which is found to be illegal by this Court. It is true that the respondent University may not have the specific power to condone the lack of attendance. But in appropriate cases, to meet the ends of justice, this Court can always exercise its power to direct the authorities to condone the defect if any. 10. I have also considered the issues from the angle of the University also. It is no doubt true that the University has to follow its regulations regarding attendance. However, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the issue has to be approached from a proper angle. A judgment has been rendered by this Court setting aside the suspension and the order of this Court has to reach its conclusion and legal effect. It is also seen that under Section 36 of the Dr.M.G.R.Medical University Act, 1987, there is power in the Governing council and the Standing Academic Board to grant exemption in appropriate cases. Section 36 of the said Act reads thus: Section 36: (1) No candidate shall be admitted any University examination unless,- (a) he is enrolled as a member of a University college, University laboratory, affiliated college or approved institution; and (b) he has satisfied the requirement as to the attendance prescribed by the regulations. Section 36 of the said Act reads thus: Section 36: (1) No candidate shall be admitted any University examination unless,- (a) he is enrolled as a member of a University college, University laboratory, affiliated college or approved institution; and (b) he has satisfied the requirement as to the attendance prescribed by the regulations. (2) The Governing Council may, on the recommendation of the Standing Academic Board, grant exemption to any candidate from the provisions of sub-section (1) subject to such conditions as it may deem fit. With the result, I am inclined to pass the following order. (1) The University is directed to deal with the petitioner's representation, dated 26.11.2004 and to invoke its power under Section 36 of the Act as aforesaid and pass appropriate orders in dealing with the issue of lack of attendance of the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (2) In the mean time, considering that the examinations for the second semester begins on 01.02.2005, the petitioner shall be permitted to sit for the examination. 3. However, the results of the examination shall not be published. The result will depend upon the decision ultimately to be taken by the University as aforesaid. 9. Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected W.P.M.P. No.1687 of 2005 is closed.