Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2243 (JHR)

Beauty Kumari v. State of Jharkhand

2018-10-10

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2018
ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of an appropriate direction to the respondents to allow the petitioners for re-registration in the 1st year of 4 years degree course in Bachelor of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry (B.V.Sc. & A.H.), for the session 2017-18 along with the fresh students in Birsa Agricultural University (BAU), Kanke, Ranchi. 2. The present writ petition was originally filed by four writ petitioners, however subsequently vide order dated 13.09.2018, the name of two writ petitioners i.e. Sweta Kumari and Mohammad Sarfraz Alam were deleted from the cause title of the writ petition on their request as they got fresh admission in Birsa Agriculture University, Ranchi in B.V.Sc. & A.H. course for the academic session 2018-19 through Jharkhand Combined Entrance Competitive Examination, 2018. 3. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the petitioners were selected for admission in 1st year of 4 years degree course of B.V.Sc. and A.H. for the Academic Session 2016-17 in Birsa Agriculture University, Kanke Ranchi (BAU). Subsequently, they made application to the Dean, BAU seeking leave due to their illness. The petitioner no. 1 stated in her application that she was suffering from Hepatitis whereas the petitioner no. 2 stated that she was suffering from Disc Prolapse. After about six months, the petitioners represented the Vice Chancellor, BAU (respondent no.-2) for consideration of their readmission in view of the provisions contained in Clause 25.4 of the Regulations on Resident Instruction for Bachelor’s Degree Programme-2008 (in short “ the Regulations, 2008) and also continued to attend the classes with fresh batch students of session 2017-18, however the respondent no. 3 stopped them from attending classes till the production of re-registration certificate. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that due to self-hospitalization, the petitioners had withdrawn themselves from the courses and as such in view of the specific provision contained in Clause 25.4 of the Regulations, 2008, their re-registration may be allowed with the fresh students as exceptional cases. It is further submitted that the petitioners have duly submitted the self- hospitalization certificates issued by the doctor showing their inability to attend the classes. 5. It is further submitted that the petitioners have duly submitted the self- hospitalization certificates issued by the doctor showing their inability to attend the classes. 5. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-BAU submits that the petitioners alongwith three others left the courses in the 1st semester of the session 2016-17 and subsequently made joint application for readmission in the next session i.e 2017-18 which was considered by the Committee on 04.10.2017 and their application was finally rejected. Another committee also reconsidered the case of the petitioners on 06.02.2018, however the same was again rejected on the same day. It is further submitted that the medical certificates produced by the petitioners were issued by the private medical practitioners, not authenticated by the Medical Board, thus the same cannot be relied upon. It is also submitted that the case of the petitioners does not fall within the purview of Clause 25.4 of the Regulations, 2008 as the petitioners themselves chose not to continue with their studies and without prior permission of the Dean or the Head of the Department or the Registrar, left their studies. Thus, the petitioner voluntarily surrendered from the course and as such they cannot be permitted to be readmitted in the University according to their wishes. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioners, in support of their case have put reliance on Clause 25.4 of the Regulations, 2008 which is quoted hereunder for ready reference in this case:- “25.4 Withdrawal of first semester:- A student shall be allowed to withdraw the first semester in the event of self-hospitalization for a longer period. Such student cannot be admitted in the Second Semester in any circumstances and shall be readmitted only in the next session alongwith fresh students to be admitted. In an ordinary case withdrawal of first semester shall not be permitted.” 7. The aforesaid provision speaks about the circumstances under which the students can be permitted to withdraw from the first semester. It has specifically been mentioned that the withdrawal shall be allowed only in case of self-hospitalization for a longer period, however in an ordinary case, the withdrawal shall not be allowed. If any student comes under such category, he/she shall be readmitted only in the next session alongwith the fresh students. It has specifically been mentioned that the withdrawal shall be allowed only in case of self-hospitalization for a longer period, however in an ordinary case, the withdrawal shall not be allowed. If any student comes under such category, he/she shall be readmitted only in the next session alongwith the fresh students. The word “shall be allowed to withdraw” mentioned in Clause 25.4 reflects that the precondition to avail the benefit of Clause 25.4 is the prior permission for withdrawal by showing all the attending circumstances. However in the present case, the petitioners had only filed applications without attaching any proof of their medical status. Moreover, the withdrawal from the course was also not allowed to them. So far the proof regarding self-hospitalization produced by the petitioners is concerned, the certificates of the doctors have been doubted by the respondents. The very purpose of Clause 25.4 appears to provide relief to the genuine/bonafide students under serious medical condition so that for the reasons beyond their control, they may not be deprived of pursuing their course in the next session. Moreover, the petitioners were admitted in the degree course of B.V.Sc. and A.H. for the academic session 2016-17 who withdrew themselves from the courses in the first year itself. Thus, in view of Clause 25.4, they could have been readmitted “only in the next session”. However in the present case, the readmission of the petitioners in the next session i.e. the academic session 2017-18 is not possible as the said session is already over and now the academic session 2018-19 has commenced. It further appears from the record that the joint application of the petitioners along with other applicants were considered by the Committee in its meeting dated 04.10.2017 wherein it was observed that none of the students had provided any self-hospitalization proof which is essential for withdrawal under Clause 25.4 of the Regulations, 2008 and as such their cases did not come under the said Clause. It was further observed that under similar circumstances, the other colleges have also rejected the claim of other applicants. 8. It was further observed that under similar circumstances, the other colleges have also rejected the claim of other applicants. 8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that Clause 24.1 of the Regulations, 2008 provides that if a student leaves the Faculty for compelling reasons, he/she may be re-admitted by the Dean within a period of two years of his/her leaving the college and the said practice has also been followed by the respondent-BAU in previous years and therefore, there is no reason as to why the petitioners being absent from the Faculty for about 3-5 months, their re-registration would not be allowed in the first semester of the subsequent academic year. 9. I am of the considered view that the said argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is misconceived. Clause 24.1 of the Regulations, 2008 has been meant for the students of good standing. Clause 22.1 provides that a student, who has achieved the minimum requirement as provided in that clause, will be deemed to be of good standing. Thus, Clause 24.1 is applicable for only those old students who have already appeared in the examination and have scored good standing. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any infirmity in the decision of the Birsa Agriculture University in rejecting the application of the petitioners for their readmission under clause 25.4 of the Regulations, 2008. 11. The writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.