Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1152 (ALL)

ANKIT SRIVASTAVA v. STATE OF U. P.

2010-04-08

DILIP GUPTA

body2010
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Dilip Gupta, J.—The petitioner, who is a student of B.Tech. in Babu Banarasi Das Institute of Technology, Duhai, Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Institute’) which is affiliated to the U.P. Technical University, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the ‘University’), has filed this petition for a direction upon the respondents to declare his result of the 8th Semester of Fourth Year Examination for the Session 2007-08. 2. It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner had appeared at the said examination but marks of sessional/internal have not been displayed in the mark-sheet which the petitioner has annexed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition after downloading it from the internet. The petitioner contacted the University authorities but was informed that the same have not been mentioned in the mark-sheet since the University had not received the sessional/internal marks from the College. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the University as well as the Institute. It has been stated that the petitioner had been detained from appearing at the 8th Semester Examination of the Academic Session 2007-08 since his attendance was short and for this reason even the admit card was not issued to the petitioner and the original admit card is still with the Institute. It has also been stated that in the absence of the admit card, the petitioner could not have appeared at the examination from the Centre K.I.E.T., Ghaziabad allotted to the students of the Institute by the University. It has also been stated in the counter affidavit that the attendance of the petitioner in the 8th Semester is only 16% as against the requirement of 75% though in certain circumstances, this requirement of 75% could be further condoned by 15%. The attendance sheets have also been enclosed along with the counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit filed by the University, it has also been stated that the Institute had sent a list of candidates who had been detained from appearing in the examination and the name of the petitioner also appeared in the said list. The petitioner has, therefore, been declared failed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had been permitted to appear at the 8th Semester Examination and, therefore, the respondents cannot withhold the declaration of result on account of shortage of attendance. The petitioner has, therefore, been declared failed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had been permitted to appear at the 8th Semester Examination and, therefore, the respondents cannot withhold the declaration of result on account of shortage of attendance. He has further submitted that the petitioner had been regularly attending the classes and the Institute is not justified in stating that the attendance of the petitioner is only 16%. 5. Sri Neeraj Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University and Sri Amrish Sahai, learned counsel appearing for the Institute have placed before the Court the Ordinances of the University relating to the Bachelor of Technology Programmes and have submitted that no student can be permitted to appear at the end semester examination if he does not satisfy the overall average attendance requirements contained in Clauses Nos. 3.1 and 3.2 and shall be treated as having failed. According to them, under Clause 3.1 every student is required to attend all the lectures, tutorials, practicals and other prescribed curricular and co-curricular activities. The attendance can be condoned upto 25% on medical grounds or for other genuine reasons beyond the control of students but under Clause 3.2, a further relaxation of attendance upto 15% can be given by the Head of the Institution provided the student was absent with prior permission of the Head of the Institution for the reasons acceptable to the Head of the Institution. They have, therefore, contended that under no circumstances a student having less than 60% attendance can be permitted to appear in the examination and since in the present case, the petitioner had only 16% attendance, he was rightly detained. 6. Learned counsel for the Institute has further submitted that the Institution had not issued any admit-card to the petitioner for appearing at the 8th Semester Examination and it transpires that after downloading the admit-card from the internet, the petitioner somehow managed to appear from the examination centre allotted by the University to the students of the Institute. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 8. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it would be necessary to refer to the attendance requirement as contained in the Ordinances framed by the University and they are as follows : “3. Attendance. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 8. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it would be necessary to refer to the attendance requirement as contained in the Ordinances framed by the University and they are as follows : “3. Attendance. 3.1 Every student is required to attend all the lectures, tutorials, practicals and other prescribed curricular and co-curricular activities. The attendance can be condoned upto 25% on medical grounds or for other genuine reasons beyond the control of students. 3.2 A further relaxation of attendance upto 15% for a student can be given by Head of the Institution/college provided that he/she has been absent with prior permission of the Head of the institution/college for the reasons acceptable to him. 3.3 No student will be permitted to appear in the end semester examination if he/she does not satisfy the overall average attendance requirements of Clause Nos. 3.1 and 3.2 and such candidate(s) shall be treated as having failed and will be further governed by clause No. 4.2 and 4.3. 3.4 The attendance shall be counted from the date of admission in the college or start of academic session whichever is later.” 9. The Institution has filed the attendance chart of the petitioner and has stated that the attendance of the petitioner is only 16%. All that has been stated in the rejoinder affidavit is that the allegation of the Institute that the attendance of the petitioner in the 8th Semester is 16% is not correct and that the attendance of the petitioner was more than 50%. 10. Under Clause 3.1 of the Ordinances, it is clear that the attendance can be condoned upto 25% on medical grounds or for other genuine reasons beyond the control of the student. However, under Clause 3.2 a further relaxation of attendance upto 15% can be given by the Head of the Institution. Clause 3.3 provides that no student will be allowed to appear in the end semester examination if he does not satisfy the overall attendance requirement of Clause 3.1 and 3.2 and such candidate shall be treated as having failed. It is, therefore, clear that a student having attendance less than 60% cannot be permitted to appear at the end semester examination under any circumstances. The attendance of the petitioner is only 16%. The Institute has filed the attendance chart. It is, therefore, clear that a student having attendance less than 60% cannot be permitted to appear at the end semester examination under any circumstances. The attendance of the petitioner is only 16%. The Institute has filed the attendance chart. The petitioner denies that his attendance is 16% but only a general denial has been made and there is no averment that the attendance of the petitioner on any day(s) has been wrongly noted in the attendance chart. There is no good reason not to believe the statement of the Institute regarding the attendance of the petitioner, particularly when no allegation of mala fide has been against the teachers or officers of the Institute. 11. This apart, even according to the petitioner his attendance was more than 50%. He has not stated that his attendance was more than 60% and nor is it his case that he would be governed by Clause 3.2 since there is nothing on the record to indicate that the petitioner was absent with prior permission of the Head of the Institute. The petitioner was, therefore, correctly detained by the Institute from appearing in the 8th Semester Examination. 12. The petitioner, on his own, has managed to appear at the 8th Semester Examination even though the Institute did not issue any admit-card to him. It appears that this has been possible because the examination centre of the students of the Institute was in another institution. No benefit can accrue to the petitioner merely because of appearance at the said examination. 13. The requirement of having requisite percentage of attendance for appearing at the examination has been emphasized by Courts time and again. In Parvez Ahmad and others v. Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh and others, 1987 UPLBEC 517 a Division Bench of this Court examined the provisions of the Attendance Regulations of the Aligarh Muslim University which provided that the attendance should be 75% but the Condonation Committee could condone the shortage of attendance in cases where attendance was upto 65%. The Court refused to grant relief to the students whose attendance was less than 65%. This decision of the Division Bench of the High Court was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2820 of 1987 (Syed Nusrat Z. Ahmed and others v. Aligarh Muslim University and others). 14. The Court refused to grant relief to the students whose attendance was less than 65%. This decision of the Division Bench of the High Court was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2820 of 1987 (Syed Nusrat Z. Ahmed and others v. Aligarh Muslim University and others). 14. In Regional Engineering College, Hamirpur and another v. Ashutosh Pandey, JT 2000 (10) SC 216 the Supreme Court examined the provisions of the attendance regulations of the University which provided that though the requirement of attendance was 75%, but the Principal could condone further shortage upto 10% only if the candidate satisfied the conditions mentioned therein. The Supreme Court held that in view of the Regulations, under no circumstances the Principal could condone shortage of 11% attendance below the normal requirement of 75% since the Principal had the power to condone only upto 10%. The relevant observations are as follows : “A perusal of the Regulation shows that a candidate should first have 75% of minimum attendance in that course under Regulation 4.1. Regulation 4.2 mentions the circumstances under which further exemption can be granted by the Principal. The Principal can give further credit upto an extent of 10% of the total classes held in each course during the period of a student’s participation in the programmes/competitions mentioned in Regulation 4.2. The Principal can exempt upto 10% of the total classes only in contingencies as mentioned in Regulation 4.2. Thus, 10% is the maximum in addition to 25%. In addition, Regulation 4.3 is specific that the condonation on account of reasons listed under (4.2) shall not exceed 10% of the total lectures delivered during the semester It also states that a candidate will have to apply to the concerned Head of Department on prescribed proforma along with the reasons and documents in proof of his absence. Condonation can be granted by the concerned Head of Department with the prior approval of the Principal. Thus, 10% in excess of 25% alone, is the maximum that can be condoned. In the present case, the respondent did not make any application in the prescribed pro forma. Therefore, it is not possible to say whether his case comes within the contingencies mentioned in Regulation 4.2. Thus, 10% in excess of 25% alone, is the maximum that can be condoned. In the present case, the respondent did not make any application in the prescribed pro forma. Therefore, it is not possible to say whether his case comes within the contingencies mentioned in Regulation 4.2. It is no doubt stated that the respondent had gone to Delhi to appear in the examination/interview, but it is not clear whether that was an examination/interview held by a Government Organization/Public Limited Company. In any event, admittedly after deducting admissible 25% exemption, further absence of the respondent comes to 11% which is more than the permissible discretionary percentage granted to the Principal. Therefore, the Principal was right in saying he had no power to condone the absence in excess of 10% in addition to 25%. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court fell into an error in permitting condonation of absence beyond 10% in addition to 25%. We, therefore, set aside the judgment of the High Court and the directions given therein.” (emphasis supplied) 15. In the present case, the attendance of the petitioner is about 16% only. The maximum percentage of attendance which can be condoned from the normal requirement of 75% is 15%. In other words, there is no scope to condone shortage in attendance if the attendance is less than 60%. It will, therefore, not be possible for this Court to condone the shortage of attendance. No relief can, therefore, be granted to the petitioner. 16. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 17. The cost of Rs. 50,000/- deposited with the Registrar General of the Court by the Institute shall be transmitted to the account of Allahabad High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. A copy of this order may, therefore, be sent to the Registrar General of the Court. ————