Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Akilesh Lumani And Others vs Principal, Sir C.R. Reddy Autonomous ... on 18 July, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(4)ALD630, 2000(4)ALT568, AIR 2001 ANDHRA PRADESH 86, (2000) 4 ANDH LT 568, (2000) 4 ESC 2382, (2000) 4 ANDHLD 630, (2001) 5 SERVLR 231
ORDER R. Ramanujam, J.
1. Can the students of an Autonomous College, who have failed to attend 75% of the total lectures, claim eligibility to appear at the final examination on the ground that the college has not stipulated such a requirement by framing a Rule or Regulation ?
2. This is the main question that arises for our consideration in this appeal filed by the unsuccessful petitioners in Writ Petition No.29673 of 1998.
3. The facts that gave rise to the appeal, in brief, are the following :
The fourteen, (14) appellants-petitioners (hereinafter referred to as 'students') were the students of Sir C.R. Reddy Autonomous College, Eluru, (hereinafter referred as 'the, College'). During the academic year 1997-98 they were studying either in the first year or in the second year degree courses of B.A./B.Com./B.Sc. When they were not allowed to appear at the final examinations, in the respective courses, by the College, on the ground that they have failed to attend 75% of the lectures, they approached this Court by filing Writ Petition Nos.9865 and 1183 of 1998. Appellants 1 and 2 herein were petitioners in Writ Petition No.l 183 of 1998 and the other appellants herein were the petitioners in Writ Petition No.9865 of 1998. Those writ petitions were admitted and an interim direction was granted directing the College to permit the students to appear at the examinations. Accordingly, they appeared at the examinations. Ultimately those two writ petitions, along with some other writ petitions filed by similarly situated students of the College, were disposed of by a learned single Judge of this Court -- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Saadatulla Hussaini, on 16-9-1998 with certain directions. The students were permitted to file petitions within ten days from the date of the order, seeking condonation of shortage in attendance. The Principal of the College was directed to forward those petitions to the Andhra University (hereinafter referred to as 'the University'). A further direction was issued to the effect that the University or the College, as the case may be, should consider those petitions and pass appropriate orders within a period of two weeks. It was also directed that if shortage in attendance is condoned, the College should declare the results of the students.
4. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the students submitted their petitions to the Principal of the College seeking condonation of shortage in attendance. The then Principal (incharge) of the College forwarded those petitions to the University along with his letter dated 25-9-1998. The Joint Registrar and Controller of Examinations of the University, responding to the aforesaid letter, informed the Principal, by his letter dated 3-10-1998; that the College, being an Autonomous College, has to decide on its own the issue of condonation of shortage in attendance. Thereafter the then in charge Principal of the College Dr. D. V.R.K. Prasad -appears to have taken a decision on his own, without referring the issue to the Management of the College, to condone the shortage of attendance of the students and io promote them to the respective next year classes. The incharge Principal appears to have informed about the said decision to the Registrar of the University by his letter dated 17-10-1998. It also appears that he had unauthorisedly collected Demand Drafts from the students towards tuition fee in the promoted classes.
5. Coming to know of the aforesaid unilateral decision of the then in charge Principal-Dr. D. V.R.K. Prasad-the Management of the college acted swiftly and replaced him with another in charge Principal on 21-10-1998. It appears that disciplinary proceedings were also commenced by the Management against him.
6. The successor Principal (incharge) of the College, having found that the action of his predecessor is irregular and without lawful authority, immediately put up a notice on the notice board of the College informing the students that they would not be allowed to attend the promoted classes. It appears that he had also resisted the attempts of the students, on 23-10-1998, to enter the College campus and attend the classes.
7. In the meanwhile, the Vice-Chancellor of the University constituted a Committee to consider the issue of condonation of shortage of attendance of the students of the 'College'. That Committee appears to have met on 20-10-1998 and resolved to follow the existing rules and withhold the results of all such students who have attended less than 66% of the total lectures. A copy of the said resolution was communicated to the Principal of the College by the Joint Registrar and Controller of Examinations of the University by his letter dated 26-10-1998.
8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the successor Principal (incharge) of the College, the students filed Contempt Case No.1844 of 1998 to punish him for the alleged violation of the order of this Court in Writ Petition No.9865 of 1998. They have also filed Writ Petition No.29673 of 1998 seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Principal (incharge) of the College in not permitting them to attend the promoted classes in BA./B.Com./B.Sc. courses, as the case may be and for a consequential direction permitting them to attend the classes.
9. The aforesaid contempt case and the writ petition were heard, at length, along with the other connected writ petitions by a learned single Judge of this Court -- Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.S.A. Swamy. By a common order dated 1-9-1999 the learned Judge dismissed the said contempt case and the writ petition. This writ appeal is filed against the said order insofar as it relates to Writ Petition No.29673 of 1998.
10. Sri M.R.K. Choudary, learned senior Counsel, appearing for the students urged, rather elaborately and painstakingly, the following contentions :
(1) The College, which is an Autonomous College, did not make any Rule or Regulation or standing order stipulating that the students who have failed to attend 75% of the lectures will not be permitted to appear at the final examinations. Hence, the College cannot insist upon 75% of attendance as a condition precedent for allowing the students to appear at the examinations.
(2) The order of the Principal of the College, dated 17-10-1998, condoning the shortage of attendance, was neither revoked nor set aside by the competent authority. Hence, that order became final and is binding on the successor Principal (incharge) of the College.
(3) The decision of the successor Principal not to follow the earlier order dated 17-10-1998 was issued in violation of the principles of natural justice as no prior notice was given to the students. Hence, that decision is vitiated and unsustainable.
(4) The resolution, dated 20-10-1998, of the Committee constituted by the Vice-Chancellor of the University is non est in the eye of law. Hence, it cannot be the basis for (he successor Principal for taking the impugned decision.
(5) Regulations requiring minimum percentage of attendance as a condition precedent to permit the students at the examinations are not made by any competent authority of the University; and even if there is such a Regulation, it cannot be made applicable to an Autonomous College.
11. Elaborating his first contention, Sri M.R.K. Choudary, learned senior Counsel, submitted that the College, though affiliated to Andhra University, is an Autonomous College and, therefore, has to conduct examinations by itself to its students in various degree courses. The College can frame its own Regulations regarding admission of students, minimum percentage of lectures they have to attend to become eligible to appear at the final examinations; but the College did not make any such Rule or Regulation and no such requirement was stipulated even by the University by framing a necessary Rule or Regulation. He further submits that Regulation 3(5) of the University Grants Commission (the minimum standards of instructions for the grant of the first degree through formal education in the faculties of Arts, Humanities, Fine Arts, Music, Social Sciences, Commerce and Sciences) Regulations, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as" 'the UGC Regulations') is a mere guideline and cannot operate in the absence of a Regulation framed by the College. Since the College has not framed any Regulation stipulating 75 % of minimum lectures, it cannot rely upon the said Regulation and detain the students. Hence, the action of the Principal (I/c) of the College in not permitting the students from attending the classes in the 2nd and 3rd years of B.A./B.Com/B.Sc., as the case may be, is illegal and unsustainable.
12. We have carefully considered the aforesaid contention, but are not able to accept the same for more than one reason.
13. Sir C.R. Reddy College was established way back in 1945. Over the years, the College came to occupy a prime place amongst educational institutions in the State. Considering the infrastructure facilities available in the College, the A.P. Commissioner of Higher Education approved setting up of an Autonomous College on 18-6-1987. Subsequently, the University Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission") by its order dated 11-5-1987 accorded the status of autonomy to the College. The same was also accepted by the Andhra University on 28-7-1987. Accordingly, the College started functioning as an Autonomous College from the academic year 1987-88.
14. Undisputedly, the College is a "University" within the inclusive definition of that term under Section 2(f) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Section 26(1)(f) of the Act gives power to the Commission to make Regulations for maintaining the minimum standard of instruction for the grant of any degree by any University. As per Section 14 of the Act such Regulations are binding on all the Universities and Autonomous Colleges. In exercise of the said power, the Commission has framed the UGC Regulations. Regulation 3 thereof deals with 'working days'. Sub-regulation (5) of Regulation 3 stipulates the minimum number of lectures which a student shall attend to make him eligible for appearing at the examinations. It is useful here to extract the same.
"Regulation 3(5). Minimum number of lectures, tutorials, seminars, practicals etc., which a student shall be required to attend before being eligible for appearing at the examinations shall be as prescribed by the University which, on an average, shall not be less than 75% of the total number of lectures, tutorials, seminars, practicals etc."
A plain reading of the aforesaid Regulation makes it abundantly clear that the minimum number of lectures, tutorials, seminars, practicals etc., which a student is required to attend to make him eligible for appearing at the examinations shall not be less than 75% of the total number of lectures and no University or College can prescribe a lesser minimum than that. It is, however, open for the College or University concerned to prescribe a higher percentage of minimum number of lectures etc.
15. The aforesaid requirement prescribed by the Commission, in our considered view, is not only a salutary one, but also an essential one. It is wll recognised, since ages, that a student can never get complete education by merely reading the text books sitting at home under a personal tutor. For the all-round development of one's personality it is essential that one should attend an educational institution, call it by any name Gurukuiam, Madarsa, or College, along with other students who come from various cross sections of the society. This was the reason that why the great Kings and Emperors of this country always sent their sons to the Gurukulas headed by famous Masters, who were residing mostly in the deep forests. The Princes were made to sit along with the other common-students, work along with them and serve the Master like the other commoners. Even Lord Krishna, who was the depository of all knowledge, had to attend the Gurukuiam headed by that Great Teacher Sandipani along with others including the poor 'Kuchela'. It is also well recognized that learning by attending the college, unlike learning from books, will broaden the vision of the students and develop a sort of camaraderie amongst them, which is very essential for understanding the intricate problems of the country and for its good governance. That apart, the job of a lecturer is not only teaching the subject but also to help the student in the full development of his personality. This will only be possible if a student attends the lectures regularly, enabling the teacher to constantly watch his performance and guide him in the right direction. Thus, attending the College or an educational institution, regularly, is an essential element of education, which will be lost if a student fails to attend a minimum number of lectures.
16. Sri M.R.K. Chondary, the learned senior Counsel, however, contends that the said Regulation is a mere guideline indicating as to how an Autonomous College or University has to frame its Regulations, but cannot by itself operate in the absence of a Regulation made by the 'College'.
17. We find no merit in this submission.
18. The intention of the Rule making authority making in the said Regulation is to maintain minimum standards in college education throughout the country by prescribing minimum number of lectures a student has to attend to make him eligible to appear at the examinations. The said Regulation is binding on all that Universities and Autonomous Colleges in view of Section 14 of the Act. If the said Regulation is to the interpreted as a mere guideline, as suggested by the learned senior Counsel, a College or an University can easily give a go bye to the requirement by not framing a Regulation and allow a student, who has failed to attend the lecturers even to the barest minimum, at the examinations. Thus, the very intention of the Rule making authority to maintain minimum standards of instruction will be defeated. It is one of the basic principles of statutory interpretation that a Statute/Rule should be construed, to make it effective, if possible, and an interpretation which has the affect of defeating the plain intention of the Legislature/Rule making Authority has to be avoided. See the decisions of the Supreme Court in C.I.T. v. S. Teja Singh, and M. Pentiah v. Veeramallappa Muddala, .
19. For Ihe aforementioned reasons, we are of the considered view that the said Regulation is not a mere guideline but is a binding Regulation prescribing the requirement of attending 75% of lectures as a condition precedent for appearing at the examinations even though no such Rule or Regulation has been framed by the Autonomous College or the University concerned.
20. We, therefore, answer the question, referred to above, in the negative and hold that the appellant-students, who have failed to attend 75% of the lectures, are not eligible to appear at the final examinations on the ground that the College has not prescribed such a requirement by framing a Rule or Regulation.
21. In this case, we, however, find that such a requirement was in fact prescribed by the College in its Calendar for the academic year 1997-98. Rule 2 under the caption "ATTENDANCE" at Page 31 of the Calendar clearly stipulates thus :
"02. Every student must attend atlcast 75 percent of the lecture classes and in the case of science 90 per cent of the practical classes to enable him to obtain a certificate of attendance.
(a) The absence of a student without leave for any single hour in a session results in the loss of attendance for the whole sessions.
(b) A student who has to absent himself shall apply for leave to the Principal through his class officer. The Class Officer shall after ascertaining the facts, forward the application with his remarks to the Principal. Application for leave of absence which can be foreseen sufficiently in advance should be submitted on the previous working day to the class officer and his permission obtained to avail leave. Application for leave of absence which cannot be foreseen should be submitted immediately after availing oneself to the leave period.
Any student who absents himself without leave shall be punished by a fine of Re.l/- a day in the first instance. Heavier punishments may be imposed if the student is irregular.
Names of the students who are absent for more than 10 days without leave continuously shall be struck off the rolls. The name of a student may also be struck off the rolls if he is found to be irregular or if he is absent for more than 25% of the working days in a term or a Semester".
22. Sri M.R.K.Choudary, learned senior Counsel, relying upon the last limb of sub-rule (b) of the aforesaid Rule 2 submits that the said Rule has nothing to do with the power of the College to detain student for shortage of attendance, but only deals with the power of the College to struck off the name of a student for his failure to attend the minimum number of lectures etc.
23. We are not impressed by this contention either. The aforesaid Rule 2 clearly stipulates that a student must attend at least 75% of the lecture classes and in the case of science 90% of the practical classes, to enable him to obtain a certificate of attendance. Can a student be permitted to appear at the examinations without a certificate of attendance? The answer should be, in our considered view, an emphatic "no". Therefore, the power to detain a student who has failed to attend the minimum number of lectures etc., is clearly implied in the aforesaid Rule 2.
24. We shall now consider the second contention advanced by the learned senior Counsel for the students.
25. We have already narrated, hereinabove, the facts and circumstances relating to the decision of the then incharge Principal Dr. D.V.R.K. Prasad - dated 17-10-1998, condoning the shortage of attendance and promoting the students to the respective next year classes.
26. Sri M.R.K. Choudary, the learned senior Counsel, strenuously contended that the said decision of the then Principal (incharge) was neither revoked nor set aside by any competent authority. It has thus become final and is binding on the successor Principal. The successor Principal, therefore, has no authority or power to deviate from the said decision and restrain the students from attending the promoted classes.
27. We find no merit in this submission also.
28. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the College, by the successor Principal (incharge), it was categorically stated that the then Principal (incharge) -Dr. D.V.R.K. Prasad-- instead of placing the issue of condonation of shortage of attendance before the Board of Management of the College, has taken a decision, on his own, contrary to the Rules and Regulations and procedure without any authority or competence and also unauthorisedly collected Demand Drafts from the students towards tuition fee and kept them in his custody without revealing his decision to anybody. It was further categorically stated, "all this is done with mala fide intentions and for oblique purposes and the whole procedure is against rules, regulations and procedures which is invalid". It was also further stated that having come to know of the said unauthorised decision on the afternoon of 21-10-1998, the Management of the College immediately replaced the then Principal (incharge) with a new incumbent, who was advised to act in conformity with the rules and the procedure.
29. It is pertinent to note here that the aforesaid clear averments in the counter-affidavit were not disputed by the students by filing a suitable reply affidavit. It is, therefore, clear that the then Principal (incharge) took upon himself, for the reasons best known to him, the burden of deciding the issue of condonation of shortage of attendance and has taken the said decision on 17-10-1998 without any authority or power. The learned Counsel for the students also could not place before us any Rule or Regulation issued by the College empowering the Principal to condone shortage of attendance. In fact the College has not framed any Rule or Regulation or issued instructions empowering the Principal to condone such shortage. Counsel for the students, however, feebly submits that the then Principal was authorised by the University by its letter dated 3-10-1998 to decide the issue. This contention, in our considered view, is wholly misconceived. What the Joint Registrar and Controller of Examinations of the University by his letter dated 3-10-1998 informed the then Principal is that the College being an Autonomous College has to decide the issue by itself. This cannot, by any stretch of imagination, amount to conferring power upon the Principal. Even otherwise, the Joint Registrar and Controller of Examinations of the University cannot confer upon the Principal of the College, in the absence of a valid Regulation or Rule, power to condone shortage of attendance. Thus viewed from any angle, the decision of the then Principal (incharge) condoning shortage of attendance is without any authority or power. Therefore, the successor Principal is not bound by the same and his impugned action in not following the said decision cannot be faulted.
30. The third contention advanced on behalf of the appellant-students that the decision of the successor Principal not to follow the earlier decision dated 17-10-1998 was in violation of principles of natural justice as no prior notice was given to the students, is also without any merit. As already noted, the said decision of the then Principal (incharge) dated 17-10-1998 was without any lawful authority or power. Hence, that decision could not and did not confer any legal right upon the students. It is now well settled that prior notice or opportunity of being heard has to be given only in cases where a vested right is sought to be disturbed. Since no right has accrued to the students in this case, it is not necessary for the successor Principal to issue any prior notice or afford an opportunity to the students, before deviating from the earlier illegal decision taken by his predecessor. In our considered view, the successor Principal is perfectly right in ignoring the decision taken by his predecessor on 17-10-1998.
31. As already noted, the University constituted a Committee for considering the issue of condonation of shortage of attendance of the students of the College. That Committee met on 20-10-1998 and resolved to follow the existing-rules strictly and to withhold the results of all such candidates who have failed to put in alleast 56% of attendance. A copy of Hie said resolution was sent to the Principal of the College by the Joint Registrar and Controller of Examinations of the University along with his letter dated 26-10-1998 slating that the Vice-Chancellor has advised to follow the resolution of the Committee strictly while considering the condonation of shortage of lectures.
32. The fourth contention of the Counsel for the students is that the Vice-Chancellor of the University has no power or authority to constitute such a Committee and, therefore, the said resolution of the Committee is non est. He further submits that the impugned decision of the successor Principal was based on that illegal resolution and is accordingly vitiated.
33. In our considered view the aforesaid contention is wholly misconceived, as it will not in any way advance the case of the students.
34. We have already held that Regulation 3(5) of the UGC Regulations is binding on the College and the students, who have failed to attend 75% of the total number of lectures, are not eligible to appear at the final examinations. We have also noted that the College has not framed any Regulation or instruction enabling the Principal of the College to condone the shortage of attendance, We may, however, note here that the Academic Council of the University way back in 1985-86 passed a resolution empowering the affiliated colleges to condone the shortage of attendance (in the first degree courses) for the academic year 1986-87, where the students have attended 66% of the lectures. It appears that the said decision is being followed in the succeeding years. This appears to be the decision that was referred to by the Committee constituted for the purpose of considering the issue of condonation of shortage of attendance of the students of the College. As already noted, the Committee by its resolution dated 20-10-1998 resolved not to condone the shortage if the students fail to attend even 66% of the lectures. Thus, the said resolution dated 20-10-1998 authorises condonation of shortage of attendance only in cases where the students attend 66% of the lectures. If we accept the present contention of the students and declare the said resolution of the Committee dated 20-10-1998 as won est, the College will be left with no power to condone shortage of attendance even in cases where the students have attended 66% or more of the total lectures. That will not in any way advance the students' case. Further, the learned Counsel for the students could not place any material before us to show that the impugned decision of the successor Principal is based on the said resolution. Therefore, we are not expressing any opinion on this issue.
35. Relying upon several provisions ofthe Universities Act, Counsel for the students elaborated his fifth contention and submitted that Regulations requiring minimum percentage of attendance as a condition precedent are not made by any competent authority of the University, and even if there is such a Regulation it cannot be made applicable to an Autonomous College.
36. In view of our finding that Hie College is bound by Regulation 3(5) of the UGC Regulations and the students who have failed to attend 75% of the lectures etc., are not eligible to appear at the final examinations, it is not necessary for us to deal with this contention and, therefore, we have this issue also open without expressing any opinion.
37. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs.