Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1348 (RAJ)

Anuradha Vijay v. Principal, Shri Mishri Lal Dubey Mahila Sikashak Prakshishan Mahavidyalaya Kekri, Ajmer

2006-04-25

K.S.RATHORE

body2006
Honble RATHORE, J.–The petitioner was pursuing her study in Shri Shri Mishri Lal Dubey Mahila Sikashak Prakshishan Mahavidyalaya Kekri, Ajmer. During her study, the petitioner being pregnant was advised complete bed rest w.e.f. 25.8.2005 and after delivery, the petitioner resumed her study. (2). The controversy arise when the petitioner was not allowed by the college authority to fill the examination form for B.Ed. Course. It was also directed by the college to furnish an affidavit regarding maternity leave along with medical certificate. (3). It is not disputed that the petitioner resumed her study, but the affidavit as desired by the college was not submitted by the petitioner under the pretext that the maternity leave is a kind of leave which cannot be denied to a married women on account of pregnancy calling for maternity leave and the attendance to the studies cannot be declared to be short for examination purposes due to availment of maternity leave. It is contended that till the examination date, the petitioner will attained the minimum requirement of the attendance. (4). This Court vide order dated 28.3.2006 directed the Principal of the College to forward the examination form with the specific note whether the petitioner has completed requisite attendance or not to the respondent No. 2. The college forwarded the examination form with the stipulation that she has not completed the required attendance, which is mandatory. (5). Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submissions placed reliance on the judgment rendered by this Court in case of Dr. Mamta Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in WLC 2004(1) 314 = (RLW 2004 (3) Raj. 2063) wherein this Court has held as under:- ``The period of manternity leave has to be counted as on duty for the purpose of training while computing the total period of training. (6). Learned counsel further placed reliance on the judgment rendered by Honble Supreme Court in case of Municipal Corpn. Of Delhi vs. Female Workers reported in (2000) 3 SCC 224 . (7). Per contra, learned counsel for the University and College has controverted the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. (8). Learned counsel for the respondents referred the circular dated 29.07.2005 whereby it was made clear that 180 working days are mandatory for the purpose to appear in the B.Ed. Examination. (7). Per contra, learned counsel for the University and College has controverted the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. (8). Learned counsel for the respondents referred the circular dated 29.07.2005 whereby it was made clear that 180 working days are mandatory for the purpose to appear in the B.Ed. Examination. After referring the circular, learned counsel for the respondents submits that even after granting 45 days of maternity leave, petitioner is not able to complete the required 75% attendance. (9). Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the college submits that practical examinations have already been conducted in which the petitioner did not appear and for technical training, the petitioner is required to complete the mandatory 180 days for the purpose of eligibility to appear in the examination. (10). Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the judgment rendered in case of Damodar Prasad Goyal vs. University of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 1996 (2) WLC (Raj.) 662 wherein this Court has held that University is under obligation to ensure 75% of minimum attendance as per guidelines of UGC in the colleges under it. (11). Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that even after relaxation of maternity leave, the petitioner is not able to complete the attendance of 180 working days. (12). Heard rival submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and perused the Ordinance as well as judgments referred by the parties. (13). As stated by the respondents that the practical examination have already been completed and the examinations had already been commenced from 10.4.2006, in such circumstances, in the considered view of this Court and Honble Supreme Court, the petitioner has no case for allowing her to appear in B.Ed. examination as she has not completed 180 days of training which is mandatory. (14). The petitioner is not able to make out any case in her favour which requires any interference by this Court while exercising extra ordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition fails and herewith dismissed. The interim order dated 28.3.2006 is vacated. The application under Article 226(3) stands disposed of.