Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2979 (ALL)

KIRTI SAHAI v. STATE OF U. P.

2013-12-10

DILIP GUPTA

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Dilip Gupta, J.—The petitioner, a student of B.Tech III year in the Ajay Kumar Garg Engineering College, Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘College’) 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 permit the petitioner to appear at the 5th Semester examination of the III year. The petitioner has been detained from appearing at the examination as her attendance fell short of the required percentage. 2. It is stated that the 5th Semester classes started from 23rd July, 2013 but as the petitioner was hospitalised from 8th August, 2013 to 5th October, 2013, she could not attend the classes during this period as a result of which communications dated 17th October, 2013, 18th October, 2013 and 31st October, 2013 were sent by the College to inform that the petitioner will not be permitted to appear at the 5th Semester examination because of shortage of attendance. 3. It is pointed out by Sri Ram Jee Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the shortage in attendance of the petitioner should have been condoned in accordance with the Ordinances framed by the University as the attendance of the petitioner was 51% and failure to condone the shortage has resulted in loss of one academic year of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that in any case, the College should have held extra classes so that the petitioner could satisfy the attendance requirements and in support of his contention learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Sudipta Chowdhury and others v. West Bengal State Council of Technical Education, decided on 19th May, 2011. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University and the College have, however, submitted that the attendance of candidates admitted to the B.Tech Course in the College for the purpose of appearing at the respective examinations have been strictly examined in accordance with the Ordinances framed by the University and the list of detained candidates who did not have the requisite 60% attendance was displayed on the notice board. 5. The Court has considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties. The attendance requirements, as contained in Ordinance 7 of the Ordinances framed by the University, are as follows : “7. 5. The Court has considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties. The attendance requirements, as contained in Ordinance 7 of the Ordinances framed by the University, are as follows : “7. Attendance Requirement: 7.1 Each semester is considered as a unit and a student is expected to attend 100% classes including practicals and other academic activities. However, a minimum average attendance of 75% is required for appearing in the End Semester Examination with a provision of further condonation of 15% of the attendance by the Principal/Director of the College/Institute, where the student is studying, on the basis of some reasonable cause as medical ground, participation in University/State/Central level sports, cultural activities, seminars, workshops, paper presentation, placement activity etc. 7.2 The basis of the calculation of the attendance shall be from the date of commencement of the classes prescribed by the University by its academic calendar. For the first semester/third semester (Lateral Entry) newly admitted students, the same shall be reckoned from the date of admission/registration to the programme. 7.3 The Principal/Director of affiliated colleges/institutions shall submit a list of all such students who are being detained for shortage of attendance or any other reasons with due justifications at least one week before the start of End Semester Examination to the Controller of Examination of the University. 7.4 Attendance shall be counted upto seven days prior to the date of commencement of the University theory examination. 7.5 A student having shortage of attendance as per Ordinances 7.1 shall not be allowed to appear in the End Semester Examination.” 6. It is seen from the aforesaid provision of the Ordinances of the University that though a student is expected to attend 100% classes including practicals, but a minimum average attendance of 75% is required for appearing at the End Semester Examination with a further condonation of 15% of the attendance by the Principal/Director of the College where the student is studying, on the basis of some reasonable cause such as medical ground, participation in University/State/Central level sports, cultural activities etc. 7. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent-College, it is stated that the classes of III year 5th Semester started on 24th July, 2013 and ended on 22nd November, 2013 and that the End Semester Examination was scheduled to be held on 16th December, 2013. 7. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent-College, it is stated that the classes of III year 5th Semester started on 24th July, 2013 and ended on 22nd November, 2013 and that the End Semester Examination was scheduled to be held on 16th December, 2013. A chart containing names of students debarred from appearing at the University Examinations-2013-14 has been enclosed with the counter-affidavit and the name of the petitioner is mentioned at Serial No. 20 with attendance of 51%. It has further been stated in the counter-affidavit that a communication dated 10th September, 2013 was sent to the father of the petitioner to inform him that the petitioner had been absenting from classes resulting in low attendance for the period from 24th July, 2013 to 7th September, 2013 and that the petitioner will not be permitted to appear at the End Semester Examination if the attendance falls short of 75%. It has also been stated that communications dated 18th October, 2013 and 31st October, 2013 were also sent to the petitioner mentioning therein that she will not be permitted to appear at the examination as her attendance fell short of the required percentage. 8. As noticed above, under clause 7.1 of the Ordinances of the University, a candidate should have at least 75% attendance for appearing at the End Semester Examination but it can be condoned by another 15% under certain conditions. Thus, a student should have at least 60% attendance and there is no provision for granting any further relaxation in the attendance requirement. Clause 7.5 provides that a student having shortage of attendance as per clause 7.1 shall not be allowed to appear in the End Semester Examination. 9. 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 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%. 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). 10. In Regional Engineering College, Hamirpur and another v. Ashutosh Pandey, JT 2000 (10) 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 alongwith 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) 11. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the shortage of attendance of the petitioner could have been condoned under the Ordinances framed by the University. 12. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the University should hold special classes even after the teaching had come to an end on 22nd November, 2013 cannot also be accepted. The College is under no obligation to hold extra classes to enable students with shortage of attendance to make good the shortfall in attendance and what is also noticed is that the College had informed the students in advance that they have to satisfy the attendance requirement, otherwise they will not be permitted to appear at the End Semester Examination. The Court is unable to accept the view taken by the Calcutta High Court in Sudipta Chowdhury (supra) that the University should take extra classes so that the shortfall in attendance can be made good by candidates as such a provision is not contained in the Ordinances of the University and in such circumstances no direction can be given to the University to hold extra classes for students who have shortage of attendance. It is, therefore, not possible to grant any relief to the petitioner. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.