Karnataka High Court
Mukesh Kumar vs The Vice Chancellor on 10 February, 2014
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION NOS. 55136-55137 OF 2013 (EDN-EX)
BETWEEN:
1. MUKESH KUMAR
AGE: 23 YEARS
SRINIDHI HOUSE, BANGRA KULUR
PRITHVI LAYOUT, KULUR-KAVOOR ROAD
MANGALORE - 575013
2. ASHWINI J. N.
AGE: 22 YEARS
AKSHAY NIVAS, BHAVANTHI STREET
TEMPLE SQUARE, MANGALORE - 575001
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MOHAMMED AKHIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE VICE CHANCELLOR
MANGALORE UNIVERSITY
MANGALA GANGOTHRI
P.O. KANOJI, MANGALORE - 575199
2. S.D.M. PG CENTER OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES
M.G.ROAD, MANGALORE - 03
REPRESENTED BY: THE PRINCIPAL
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.N.PRASANNA, ADVOCATE FOR
M/S. P.S.RAJAGOPAL ASSOCIATES, FOR R1
SRI. SANTOSH S. NAGARALE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 26/11/2013 AND 2/12/2012 BY THE
RESPONDENT No.1 VIDE ANNEXURES 'A' AND 'B', RESPECTIVELY;
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS THAT THE PETITIONERS MAY BE
PERMITTED TO WRITE THE RE-EXAMINATIONS WHICH WAS HELD
ON 2/12/2013; AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
These petitions coming on for preliminary hearing 'B' group, are considered for final disposal.
2. The petitioners are students of S.D.M. PG Center for Management Studies, Mangalore, and are in the III Semester of MBA, under the Mangalore University. Both the petitioners claim that they had to their credit 62% and 68% attendance, respectively. The first petitioner also claims to be an athlete representing the University on several occasions and that the second petitioner has taken part in several extra-curricular activities. It is on the ground of this pre-occupation that they could not attend several classes and suffered shortage of attendance. According to the petitioners, it is in this -3- background that the respondent No.1 is stated to have passed an order, directing the Principal of the respondent No.2, not to allow the petitioners to take examination of III Semester. The petitioners then made a representation to the Registrar of respondent No.1 - University and proposed that special classes be conducted for them, in order that they make up the shortfall in attendance, and to cover the subjects, dealt with in the missed classes. The Registrar in turn having permitted the same, it is claimed that the Department of History had conducted special classes to both the petitioners and therefore there was compliance with the requirement of attendance, and this was conveyed to the Vice Chancellor of the University by the Department of History, that they had made up the classes which they had missed. But on the day of the examination, respondent No.1 is said to have passed an order stating that the petitioners could not be permitted to take the examination and their hall tickets which had been issued, were taken back by the -4- Controller of Examinations. Being aggrieved by this circumstance, the present petitions are filed.
3. This court, by its interim order dated 3/12/2013, directed the respondents to permit the petitioners to take the ensuing examinations, subject to the result of the writ petitions.
4. It is now canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondent - University that admittedly the petitioners had a shortfall of attendance and the Regulations which prescribed the minimum attendance, did not provide for condonation of such shortage and it is a serious matter, where the University cannot compromise on permitting the students who have a shortfall of attendance, to take the examinations. With regard to the shortfall in the case of these petitioners, the minimum required attendance was 75%, whereas the petitioners have a substantial shortage of attendance. Though the petitioners claim that they were pre-occupied with sports and other extra-curricular activities, no details are furnished and hence it cannot be -5- accepted that they were justified in claiming that they were absent for good and valid reasons and further the claim that they had made good the shortfall of attendance by virtue of special classes, having been taken up for their benefit, would also not be tenable as there is no such provision under the Regulations, which would permit them to take the examination. It is also stated that, if any such relief is granted to the petitioners on the ground raised by them, it would be a precedent, which would seriously affect the standards which the University has prescribed for itself and would lead to deterioration of the strict rules that are framed to achieve the higher standards of education and hence seeks that the petition be dismissed.
5. Incidentally, the petitioners have also sought for the relief of being permitted to take the examination which they were not permitted to take on 2/12/2013. In any event, the petitioners having been permitted to take the examination, their results are yet to be announced.
-6-
6. In the above circumstances, it is true that if the Regulations prescribe a minimum requirement of attendance, any student cannot be permitted to seek a concession in respect of the same. The present petitioners, however, claim that they were pre-occupied in other activities in the college and that therefore they had missed several classes. This cannot be entirely disbelieved, for, the college has gone out of its way to conduct special classes for the petitioners, though it is not prescribed under the Regulations. The petitioners have garnered the sympathy of the college authorities, which would possibly endorse the fact that the petitioners were otherwise engaged in other activities and therefore were not in a position to attend their classes. Though this appears to be a liberal view taken of the shortage of attendance by the petitioners, it is a view expressed, while being fully conscious that the University is fully justified in prohibiting any student who does not have the requisite minimum attendance, from taking the examination. Since the special classes that were conducted for the benefit of -7- the petitioners, was on a direction issued by the Registrar of University, it would not then be open for the University to turn around and refuse permission for the petitioners to take the examination.
7. While upholding the Regulations, it is not to be stated that the same is diluted in any fashion, in allowing the present writ petitions and holding that, notwithstanding the shortage of attendance, as against each of the petitioners, since the petitioners have already been permitted to take the examinations, the writ petitions are allowed. Insofar as the examinations which they have missed on 2/12/2013, the petitioners shall be permitted to take the same by way of supplementary examination in the usual course. With that observation, the petitions stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Rd/-