Kerala High Court
Ahalya Ka vs The Kannur University on 14 September, 2015
Author: K.Vinod Chandran
Bench: K.Vinod Chandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/26TH JYAISHTA, 1938
WP(C).No. 29242 of 2015 (E)
----------------------------
PETITIONER:
-----------
AHALYA KA.
RAMANEEYAM HOUSE, KODAKKAD P.O. MALAPPURAM,
PIN - 676 319.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.S.ANISHAD
SMT.LIMNA BHASKARAN
RESPONDENTS:
-------------
1. THE KANNUR UNIVERSITY
REPRESENTED BY THE VICE CHANCELLOR, KANNUR -
670001.
2. THE REGISTRAR OF EDUCATION
KANNUR UNIVERSITY, KANNUR - 670001.
3. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION
KANNUR UNIVERSITY, KANNUR - 670001.
4. THE DIRECTOR
SCHOOL OF HEALTH SCIENCES, KANNUR UNIVERSITY,
THALASSERY CAMPUS, PALAYAD P.O., THALASSERY,
KANNUR - 670 671.
R1-R3 BY ADV. SRI.VIJU THOMAS, SC, KANNUR UNIVERSITY
R BY SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED, SC, KANNUR UNIVERSITY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
16-06-2016, ALONG WITH WPC 31154/2015 AND ANOTHER THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 29242 of 2015 (E)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXT.P-1: A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
DATED 14.9.2015
EXT.P-2: A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM
THE KOZHIKODE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL, DATED
7.8.15
EXT.P-3: A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION PREFERRED BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 10.8.15
EXT.P-4: A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION PREFERRED BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 18.8.15
EXT.P-5: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD OF THE IST RESPONDENT
EXT.P-6: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXT.P-7: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
JJJ
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) Nos. 29242 & 31154 of 2015
&
W.P.(C) No. 17886 of 2016
------------------------------------------
Dated: 16th June, 2016
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners were admitted to M.Sc. Medical Microbiology course having a duration of three years. The first year is classified as preliminary and the 1st and 2nd semesters as Part I and then, the 3rd and 4th semesters as Part III; conducted in the next respective two years.
2. The petitioners were persons who were carrying on the 3rd semester of Part II in the third year. The petitioners had shortage of attendance and they were declined from participating in the examination of the Part II- 3rd semester. The petitioners challenge the same before this Court in W.P.(C) Nos.29242/2015 and W.P.(C) Nos.29242 & 31154/2015 & 17886/2016 -2- 31154/2015. The petitioner in the former had 53% of attendance and the latter had 49% of attendance. Both the petitioners raise the very same contention of they being disabled from attending classes for reason of their conception.
3. The petitioners claim that they had complied with all the other formalities of the course and hence they could be granted condonation of attendance due to the reason of pregnancy. This Court has already held in Jasmine v. State of Kerala - 2016 (2) KLT 851 that pregnancy cannot be a ground for condonation of attendance shortage. The decision would squarely apply here.
4. Further, it is to be noticed that the condonation permissible by the regulations of the University is for ten days. Condonation also can be claimed only for two times in a course and at a stretch, W.P.(C) Nos.29242 & 31154/2015 & 17886/2016 -3- for ten days. The University definitely cannot go against its regulations and permit condonation of attendance shortage beyond the period stipulated in the regulations. This Court also would not go against the regulations for reason only of the fact that the petitioners have absented from classes on the ground of their pregnancy. As has been held in the afore cited decision, the petitioners can only be treated as having taken a sabbatical from regular studies and they would be required to repeat the course and acquire the required attendance before being permitted to appear for the exams.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would argue that leave on grounds of maternity is an accepted practice, even in service and the employer is also obliged to pay salary for the period spent on maternity W.P.(C) Nos.29242 & 31154/2015 & 17886/2016 -4- leave. The same welfare measure extended to women in service, should also be extended to them in studies; is the argument. This court is not prepared to accept the said contention. The incidence of service and the requirement in a regular course of study cannot be equated. While in employment, the grant of maternity leave is a statutory mandate which the employer definitely has to comply with; even to his or her disadvantage, of not having the services of such woman employee; when payment of salary is made. That is a definite advantage conferred on the employee who has to remain out of employment only for reason of her pregnancy. However in studies, if a student keeps away from classes, on the ground of pregnancy, then disadvantage is to that student. The University definitely does not suffer any disadvantage but it has to go by its regulations which have a binding nature on the W.P.(C) Nos.29242 & 31154/2015 & 17886/2016 -5- University and the student. Such regulations are also made to ensure the quality of education and the degree offered; on completion of studies; upon which the Society acts. A student cannot be allowed to keep away from the regular courses in a structured system of education and then be permitted to appear for the examinations as a equitable measure.
6. The petitioners were granted an interim order in the writ petitions, by which the petitioners were permitted to sit for the examination, and attend the fourth semester classes, but, however, provisionally and subject to the result of the writ petition. In fact, the Kannur University had filed an appeal from the interim order, in which the Division Bench had held that the interlocutory order is not liable to be interfered with, since it was only a discretionary measure rendered in W.P.(C) Nos.29242 & 31154/2015 & 17886/2016 -6- writ jurisdiction, on the basis of prima facie case and balance of convenience. It was also held so:
"If the writ petition ultimately succeeds and the writ petitioner did not have such an interlocutory relief, the consequence can be easily visualised as one that would be disastrous to the student"
7. As a corollary, the consequences, if the petitioner is not entitled to the relief in the writ petition, also would ensue with all force and vigor; if the writ petition is eventually dismissed. This Court having considered the issue and found the writ petition to be devoid of merit, the permission granted to appear for the 3rd semester examination would be of no consequence and the results would be permanently withheld.
W.P.(C) Nos.29242 & 31154/2015 & 17886/2016 -7-
8. W.P.(C) No.17886/2016 was filed by both the petitioners, seeking for admittance to the 4th semester examination. The petitioners admittedly had attendance in the 4th semester and was not dis-entitled to participate in the 4th semester examination for reason of any attendance shortage. The learned Standing Counsel for the University, however, points out that the students can be promoted to the 4th semester only if they qualify in the 3rd semester examinations. Considering the fact the petitioners have completed the 4th semester course with requisite attendance and also appeared in the examination, the following directions are issued to adjust equities and not to unduly prejudice the students.
W.P.(C) Nos.29242 & 31154/2015 & 17886/2016 -8-
9. The writ petition having been dismissed, the petitioners' result of the 3rd semester examination will not be published. The University would permit the petitioners to enroll back in the 3rd semester course and the petitioners would be entitled to continue the course and in the event of acquiring sufficient attendance, would also be permitted to appear for the 3rd semester examination. If on such appearance, at the first instance itself, the petitioners qualify the 3rd semester examinations, then the petitioners' continuance in the 4th semester and the appearance in that examination shall be regularised. The results of the 4th semester examinations shall be published, if the petitioners at the first instance itself, clears the 3rd semester examinations. If not, the petitioners would have to again sit for the third semester exams and then enroll back in the 4th semester also and appear for the 4th W.P.(C) Nos.29242 & 31154/2015 & 17886/2016 -9- semester examinations with the requisite attendance. In that event the results of the 4th semester exam participated in, on the strength of the interim order will also be permanently withheld.
The writ petitions are disposed of with the above directions. No costs.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE jjj 17/6/16