Delhi High Court
Sharad Chauhan vs Shri Ram College Of Commerce & Anr. on 10 September, 2015
Author: V.P.Vaish
Bench: V.P.Vaish
$~30
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 10th September, 2015
+ W.P.(C) 8668/2015 & CM No. 18960/2015
SHARAD CHAUHAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Dr. Sumeet Bhardwaj, Advocate.
versus
SHRI RAM COLLEGE OF COMMERCE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Amit Bansal, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.P.VAISH
VED PRAKASH VAISH, J. (ORAL)
1. The matter was passed over in the morning to be taken at 2:30 p.m.
2. By way of present petition the petitioner has assailed notice dated 04.09.2015 issued by respondents whereby the nomination of the petitioner for the post of President of Students Union Election of respondent No.1 College to be held on 11.09.2015 was rejected.
3. Counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No.1 has been placed on record.
4. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the matter is taken up for final disposal.
5. The facts as culled out from the petition are that on 24.08.2015 respondent No.1 Shri Ram College of Commerce (hereinafter referred to as, W.P. (C) No.8668/2015 Page 1 of 4 'SRCC') issued instructions for filing nominations for various posts of the Students Union and Societies Election, 2015. As per condition No.5 of the instructions for filing nomination with regard to eligibility of the candidate for various posts, the candidates should have minimum of 75% of the attendance in the preceding year(s). The petitioner is a student of 3rd year B.Com. (Hons.) of SRCC, University of Delhi. The petitioner filed nomination for contesting the elections for the post of President of the Students Union and Societies Election, 2015 on 02.09.2015. The respondent No.1/ College rejected the candidature of the petitioner on 04.09.2015 on the ground of shortage of attendance.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a certificate dated 13.05.2015 (Annexure P-1) was issued by Principal (Acting), SRCC which categorically shows that the petitioner's aggregate attendance for the preceding two years is 75.21%.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner made a representation dated 03.09.2015 but the said representation was not decided by respondent No.1/ College.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the petitioner is not eligible for contesting elections as he does not have a minimum required attendance of 75% during the previous two years (i.e. four Semesters I-IV). The attendance of the petitioner during the previous two years is 70.24% (collectively). A copy of digital records of attendance registers maintained by respondent No.1 has been filed as Annexure R-1 to the counter affidavit. He also submits that record of the attendance of the college is maintained in regular course manually by teachers and the W.P. (C) No.8668/2015 Page 2 of 4 electronic record produced in the Court is the exact summarization of manual record of attendance of the students processed through data entry and there is no discrepancy therein.
9. Mr. Bansal, learned counsel for respondents further submits that college puts notice at the end of each Semester for students to point out discrepancy, if any, for correcting their internal assessments and the petitioner did not point out any such discrepancy.
10. Learned counsel for respondents also submits that the certificate dated 13.05.2015 certifying the attendance of the petitioner during the previous semesters to be 75.21% was issued on specific request of the petitioner for the purpose of submitting application for Scholarship. He further submits that the candidature of the petitioner was rejected on 03.09.2015 on the ground of insufficient attendance in the records of the college. The representation filed by the petitioner was rejected unanimously by the Tribunal of SRCC/respondent No.1 on 04.09.2015, after affording personal hearing to the petitioner.
11. It is a settled law that the record of attendance maintained by the College/ University is to be believed and the dispute with respect thereto cannot be the subject matter at least for adjudication in writ jurisdiction (see 'Heena Bahal vs. University of Delhi', 197 (2013) DLT 469 (DB)).
12. In the instant case as per record of respondent No.1, SRCC during the previous four Semesters the attendance of the petitioner was 70.24% (during Ist Semester 81.78%, IInd Semester 80.23%, IIIrd Semester 38.15% and IVth Semester 80.42%). The copy of computerised internal assessment has been placed on record (Annexure R-1). The petitioner had not pointed out W.P. (C) No.8668/2015 Page 3 of 4 any discrepancy in the attendance register maintained by the respondent No.1.
13. As regards certificate dated 13.05.2015 it may be mentioned that the certificate nowhere suggests that it was issued on the basis of attendance register. In any case the certificate is not in conformity with the attendance record maintained by SRCC.
14. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, there is no reason to dispute the attendance record produced by respondent No.1 and that being so, there is no illegality in the impugned notice dated 04.09.2015 whereby the nomination of the petitioner was rejected. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed.
15. The petition and the application stand disposed of.
16. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that certificate dated 13.05.2015 (Annexure R-1) has been issued by Dr. Ashok Sehgal, Principal (Acting) of SRCC, Delhi and the same is not in conformity with the record of the college, thus, the Principal of the College Dr. Ashok Sehgal is directed to appear in person and explain on what basis the said certificate was issued.
17. Renotify on 23.09.2015.
(VED PRAKASH VAISH) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 10, 2015 hs W.P. (C) No.8668/2015 Page 4 of 4