Karnataka High Court
Arbaz S/O : Mohammed Ali Sayyed vs State Of Karnataka on 7 April, 2010
Author: S.Abdul Nazeer
Bench: S.Abdul Nazeer
'2. g:
537"
F' IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD '
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APR%IL, j2~a.1:._QC: Y1"
BEFORE) C V C V
THE I-IOINPBLE MR..IUsT1c1é; s.:A3:)'Ufi*EY: Y 'T
WRIT PET1T10Ns.Ar-J.g.61*f2.1§'35/2o»1b; '
C /w 62090--94,f.:;0.1%0 (EI;w::>g) '
1N w.Ps.No.e1721--35/2910
BETWEEN:
1. ARBAZ S / Q.;"1»1oLi.;A§§/f:$A1aj£> '_SAYYE1§
Age:19 YEiAR:3n,»»'1_2QVL-1, 1*~iI_c:'>".61',' "
COMMERCE,VIiv.Y:E;ARs.,_pm-sIo_N=B
2. MUsTA'Q..SY/O ':':*}1"'MAM,SAB BAGEWADI
Ag'¢:1aYEA}:2,s.._»" V - -
ROLL No.94, CO.M'M..EC}2C2E 11 YEAR
DIVISLON -- B; '
3. AAMSH Vs/»o_';"M0Ié:AMMAD SHARIF' IVIUJAWAR
._'j%Ag¢':._Y1 9 YEARS' ---------- ~ ~'
«_ ROLL No.91, COMMERCE 11 YEAR
' '"DIVI4S1'ON_--'B,
4.". "AQIB ALTAF MURGOD
"-:Age,;;2G.Y~EARs
ROLL No.81,
Y DIVISION A B, COMMERCE II YEAR
IYADEEM S/O : RAFIQ AHMED GADHINGLAJ
Age: 19 YEARS ROLL NO. 79,
COMMERCE 11- YEAR DIVISION--B,
ii.
,._,c. .
.1\) _
._, 1 .--
AIZAN S/O : IBRAHIM MUJAWAR
Age: 19 YEARS
ROLL NO.93, COMMERCE II - YEAR
DIVISION--B,
SHABAZ S/C) : HAROON BAGAWAR
Age: 18 YEARS
ROLL NO.90, COMMERCE II -- YEAR
DIVISION«B,
ZIYA S/O : ABDUL GANI JAMA[:DARfi ;
Age: 19 YEARS "
ROLL N092, COMMERCE I1 -
DIVISION--B,
AKRAM s/0 : NAs1RKHANE.RAf1*HAN
Age: 20 YEARS ._ _
ROLL No.95, c0MMERcE_11a. YEAR 1
DIVISION--B, i
ZISHAN 'vs./'0 1';;_:TAL-[B H"A.E1z__
Age:"'1'9-YYEARs"?:
ROLL _N0.4;2,, COMMERCE I1 -- YEAR
D1V1_S1'QN'--A_
PRAVEEN S /(1)-._: M.AR1jTH1 KOTHALIKAR
Age:_2o YEARS' ' '
'ROLL NVO.75,"'CQ3.\/IEVIERCE 11 ~ YEAR
'Y "D1vYs1QR;_B
RIYAZ SHAIKI-IAJEE
L 'Age: 19jYEARS
'Y-4YRoLL~N_0.123, SCIENCE 11 -- YEAR
D1VISION--B
'EAAHVEER S/O : IMAMSAB KADALGI
= Age: 20 YEARS
ROLL NO.112, SCIENCE 11 YEAR
DIVISIONJ3
14. BILAL AHMED S/O : FAYAZ AHMED MOMIN
Age: 19 YEARS
ROLL NO.97, SCIENCE 11 YEAR
DIVISION~B
I5. SADIK S/O : RIYAZ KAKTIKAR
Age: 19 YEARS
ROLL NO. 76, COMMERCE 11 YIEARL ; '
DIVISION-B "
ALL ARE STUDENTS, "
R/O : C/O :: SHAIKH PU COLLE"G.E';'OF
SCIENCE, COMMERCE <35 ARTS,.._. =
NEHRU NAGAR - EELG.AU.M. _ _ ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRIAIIAMED ALI J.RAI-I-II}/IANSIIA.--;.ADX{'OCATE)
AND:
I. STATE OF 'jI<AR'N:ATAF:A.C T. I
BY ITS E.EPI3IT§% CC)_M M'ISS.1__::V NER
2. TIIE«D'IRECTO1R=.C
I)EP'I;.OF PRE UNIVERSITY EDN.
BANGALORE,I{AR.NATAKA
» ,3. ._"THEJPRVINCII5AL-,...SI+IAIKH PU COLLEGE
_ "OF "SCIENCE, COMMERCE 85 ARTS
' . NEI«I,RU_NA'GAR, BELGAUM. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY. S'R'I.I{.I3';;ADI'I=IYAPAK, AGA FOR R1 AND 2, Iv:/S._OOIILAY ASSTS, ADVS FOR R3) WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 81; ' ..'22'7'O._F THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
- T 'T.PIE._RECORDS PERTAINING TO PETITIONERS PUC II-YEAR
--...'.--ExAI\/IINATION APPLICATIONS ETC. AND ISSUE WRIT, ORDER OR? DIRECTIONS IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO GRANT PERMISSION TO APPEAR FOR THE PUC~Il~ YEAR FINAL EXAMINATION FOR THE YEAR 2009--10, COMMENCED FROM 18TH MARCZ-132010 UPTO 31ST MARCH 2010 AT BELGAUM CENTRE TO THE RESPONDENT NO.3 COLLEGE IN SUBJECT LIKE COMMERCE, ARTS AND SCIENCE WP No.62090~95/2010 ._ BETWEEN
1. MUJAHID S/O RIYAZAHAMED CIAIOIADARHI Age: 19 YEARS, OCC:STUDE3.NT ' ROLL No.60 PUC H YEAR 13;_1j-LVN, COMMERCE ~ " '
2. JAFAR SADIQ S /O QAMAR'u'OO1N,_MfOLLA AGE 20 YEARS, OCC;STUDE1_\n' '_ ROLL NO._8E5'PUC 11;YEAR= B-..,13'IvjR, SHARIF /'O :'NAZIRAH'AMED MULLA AGE I'18--.YEARS§;: OC'C:STUO"EN--T ROLL NOSE; RUG, 1I«YEAR.B_:D1vN SCIF3NC_E' ' ' "
Lo)
4. SHOAVIEST S/O .SH~_AB1R' BETAGERI AGE 18 YEARS,' OCC:STUDENT ~ ROLL N0.118 PUCYII YEAR B--DIVN , _ "'A-SCIENCE' JAHANGIR JUMANA
-- A ' '--A*GE'1.8~.Y'E.ARS, OCC:S'I'UDEN'I' .__ROLL. RG75 PUC 11 YEAR B--DIVN SCIENCE :,ABI5ULKAYUM S/O MOHAMMED RAFIQ LANGOT1 AGE 18 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT " ROLL No.75 PUC 11 YEAR B--DIVN SCIENCE ,-.
.... ) "
ALL ARE R/O C/O SI-IAIKI-I PRE~UNI\/ERSITY COLLEGE OF' SCIENCE, COMMERCE 81; ARTS NEHRU NAGAR, BELGAUM. PETITIONERS (By Sri. AHAMED ALI J RAHIMANSHA, ADV) AND I. STATE OF KARNATAKA _ BY ITS DEPUTY COIVIMISSIONER A BELGAUIVI '-
2. THE DIRECTOR _ g DEPARTMENT OP PRE-u'1'~I_IVvERSIT1' EDUCATI'.QIV} "
BANGALORE, KARNATAK. '
3. THE PRINCIPAL. _ _ , SHAIKH PRE-UNIVERSITY.CO'LLEG'E, I _ OF SCIENCE, COMMERCETE: ARTS " V _ NEHRU NAGAR, BELI1A--I_.J'M ;' 1 .,_fRESPONDENTS (By Sn.I<:v.'E:A--DH;YAPiA.1<, AGA'EOR"R1":AND 2, I SRI.,GOULAT7v,A.SSTS,ADVS FOR R3) T11IS,,_w'P ISvEIL.E--D:_"'u_ND'ER ARTICLES 220 AND 227 OF THE CONSTI'TuT-ION--- OE INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE _..v._RECV_O-RDS' ]f'ER;I'A'IAN.I.NG T0 PETITIONERS PUC II YEAR EI><I!5I_Z\IIiN_!:&"I',1C)'N'«APPLICATIONS AND OTHER RECORDS ETC, 'A.N'D_A. "DI'R,ECT THE RESPONDENTS TO GRANT PER1vIISSIONPi':__T1O APPEAR FOR THE PUC 11 YEAR FINAL
-VEXAMINATVION FOR THE YEAR 20091-10, COMMENCED 18TH MARCH 2010 UPTO 31ST MARCH 2010, AT 'EELGAUM CENTRE, ATTACHED TO THE RES.NO.3 COLLEGE __'~7*IN"RESPECTIvE SUBJECT LIKE COMMERCE, SCIENCE AND TTQARTS AND ETC, o""* 5» mesa wrerr PE2TiTiONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARWG, '?HiS BAY, THE COURT THE FOLLOWING:
0 R D E R The petitioners are the students of Shaikh:_Py¢'.--1jriiVersityx Coiiege of Science, Commerce and Arts, They were not permitted to: appear for the57. year:
examinations held from 18.03.fi01:0~ onwardson-I the ground of iliegibiiity to appear for they have flied these writ petitions-3 directing the respondents to~vgraii't peirmissiion'~to"ia'p.peaVr for the 11 Year PUG exarninatio--n' year 20092010. In W.Ps.No.6'i--7_2ti1f3S',f court passed an interim order on l9.0.E_;1t2(JeA}.0 pertmtting the petitioners therein to appear in the premxaining subjects of the 11 Year PUC examinations, subject to the petitioners shouid not claim equity if they=«._are__v'iot1rid to be ineiigibie for deciaration of their resuits. Vi""Pursuar1.?j'to the said order, the petitioners have appeared for d'th'e..e:>d<arr1ination the remaining subjects of {I Year PUC. In it ..n--
#1» W.P.Nos.62090--94/2020, this court has not granted any interim order.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would _<;b'11t::;n.d_" th_.,alt.
the petitioners have regularly attended the C1.ass_:ews_.V'H:owe1?er,., their attendance has not been rriiarkedpl thpee-._e'o.I;.,;_pelrr:1ecAi, lecturers. On the other hand,_ lea.rn'ed"--c:ountse-itfor the ";'3"§*o respondent submits that the peti.1;:iloners lxlverle"riotlleligible to appear for the CXaII'1lf1aLlC:)l'i~S. lll ord'er_ tobe eligihle to appear for the examination, a student sahalliha.v.e"atte_ri:dance of 75% of the total num,be:'~«p:.VLot" periotis ih Te-ac.h___H:subject during the aCademie"yca_r:."j; "':l§Li'I'€§t""--.l>lV1"(3 petiteiolners do not have 75% attendan'C_e,l' they_la'r"et.. dentieed' permission to appear for the examir1ationl.*--._V le hasz_prQ§luct:c.l the records relating to the pattenrdanee of the "pe.t_i_t_ione1's in each subject for the academic
3. he l'F"rom'th,_e.5records made available by the learned counsel for the Sltfirespondent, the attendance of the petitioners are as ~ .i_jr1der':~. & st \h Emmoam V:
mmm imam.
:3 «m mm NS mmam am mm NS» 8 mm 8.02 «mm:
.m>.,m._:s_ EEEE cmN_<.._$_ Emtwi E 9% .mm..u_.
.8 cm on Now 8.3 cm mm of 3 mm 6.02.63 mm_m:_;mnmm _E< Ema Emwvmz.:>M Emtem :_.
mom Eomm on . .2 Now
8.?
mp 8 N?
3» mm ?.oz.E$ uomS_2 Emma: :....:< ._mEv_< £«_<.._§ «momwo...
91. mam Kama ON 8 Em
3.».
8 mom in mm Roz so:
.m§m._:§ Emgm 9.05.
;m:<.:>_ mmmvoom mi N3» 3% mm .3 ,3.
mm mam 3 mm fi.oz.6n:
__§$mmm 33$ EmEE_ U9m:Sw:2 Emma?
vm mm.» 3:
m 3 NF .. we mow.
mmr...
3 8 302.6% nmimm __< 9.0.2 ~m€<.:2 nm.
b:m.=< wmmflo E8» cmmmw mmmmm_o .50» nm E mid mmmm_o _m~oP cmxmlr ommm_o _m~o._.
ea um E23 m mmmm_U _mE._.
cmxmw m mmmm_o _m~oP 3 EEE m axe mmmm_0 :38.
:mv_m._.
m mmmflo E3 . : $534 a mmmmflo HEP .
C Em» mmm .
umuc . W90» .. .. won»?
0 .,nw,.mmEU . 5 Sm» mmm . HG .§o_....W EB flcmnflw D2 _m«o._;
322:
mucmfim _mSaEo0 zu:mE:ouo< Q5 8 ®C.»m2 mmm._u3m mmm:_m:m %[%%2o.§;E33 .,.s....,%:o:_s£ .. oow.
4. The Karnataka PremUniversity of Education (Academic, Registration, Administration and Grant~in--aid etc.) Rules, 2006, which has come into force with effect from o9;fi0.2oo6 provides for the minimum days of attendance a s;tudent__i'ha_»_sl to secure in order to be eligible to appear...for=._tli.e:' arrntialo examination. The said rule is as untler:b_:li is "12. Minimum days of attendance: A V p (1) A student shall haue'~afftendance.ofA total number ofperiods..inl'each_Vsubject the academic yeai?.__f¢ becomeiiliezligilife to appear for the annual examin~alia?i;'>i' " *
5. it is evident rul'c;:= that in order to be eligiblehto _'t-hge'aexa_rnination, a student shall have attendance 75%' :.i;ofiitl1el""to'tal number of periods in each subjec-t..durin"g theiacad'erni_c year. T he documents produced by it"the"~---lear.h.ed'l*..counsellWlor the 3" respondent would clearly ,ind_iClat€:Iithpatlith_el_}petitioners do not have attendance of 75% in eachppllisubjelcti, ':''i' he overall attendance is also far below 75%. *..There merit in the submission of the learned counsel for "-the_ petitioners that the lecturers of the petitioners have not marked the attendance of the petitioners whenever they attended the classes. The petitioners have not alleged any in ~ r"'iLffm
7. In B.K..RAGHU VS. THE KARNATAKA SECONDARY EDUCATION BOARD AND OTHERS (11.12 2006 KARi'3.65g1), this court was considering the deficiency of respect of a student who had to appear._for The ground urged was i1l~health:"»&of1'_'_lth'e lstudelntl attending the classes. Rejectirigthe said cVo11tenitvio'n_i,"thisjcourtV V has held that such an approach_i:yvou'lidV be..d'etrVime_ntal to the essential requirement V to necessarily undergo the _requisite the knowledge, learning ijvnllprescribed manner by attending thei..Vc'l-3,:~ises.ll i_ impelled by sympathetic g considerationslca'n.no't. be ..a'sL_1i:.stitute for the legal requirement. if the authority has "in it's--.._discretion come to the conclusion that L16 days of absence izvas too long period to be condoned if coindoried it would result in sacrificing the interest of the AacaCiemic:'st.anda,r.ds, the Court cannot substitute the discretion exercised .~byl§the authorities oniy because a sympathetic view l' ' was permissible in a given case. , Tl'he said order has been upheld by the Divison Bench of M Court in B.K.RAGHU VS. THE KARNATAKA SECONDARY it Q ~ {S ~ EDUCATION EXAMINATION BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMIWISSIONER AND CHAIR.MAN AND OTHERS 2009 KAR 206). In the course of the judgment, the DiVisiorilBye'11ch has observed as under:
Thus a formal education school' college necessarily involyes learning> and yytrainvinllgr under the direction of teachers anduit b that the learners sh_o.ulid._ come' "to_ the school/ college regu--larly aindion 'E*i1_ne."a'lfhat is why the experts who formu'late-Ii' framed the Regulations, attendance as essential5:co.nditio_n1- for .eligi.bilitylllto appear in tlviellexariiiniatibinl lilalizing fégard to the possible coln_tinglfencielsiV"and_circurnstances, the rules also provide for exceptionally hard cases isubject l to _ certain reasonable conditions and flllinziitations. "Persuaded by sympathy, the Court V' " .,sliould'?1otfurther dilute or relax the requirements the experts in the field. If the Court A did' it will amount to an unwarranted iriterference in academic matters and it will not be it .._in public interest. It may also be pointed out that the quality or worth of education consists not only in the marks obtained in the examination held at the end of the course. It consists also in the is
-- l6 "
human qualities, the culture and the social outlook one acquires and the development of his_..__ personality through living with other students"
the school/ college as a community, con;st*air_it.'__i__i'ii.j' , A' interaction with teachers and other students and: in active participation in co--curricu4lar Hence unless a student school/college regularly, _he cannot get,iv-firoper ii . education. Therefore, it the" i student himself that he to.irepe_at_tihe course to enable'-.._._him to least the required minimum nur5ril_9erV'oji' cla--s.ses}f'.
9. This c§L1i=;§'in.gP2gEETHii1si"'i-siIARGAV K.S. VS. B.R.R.MAHAif2§N coLLEGE AND ANOTHER (ILR that attendance is necessary to achieve academicdi_sciplin.--el and scholastic excellence. It is the for any"c.o.1.1t'se of study. That is why the University has" provid'ed<-.fo1'-.a minimum attendance in the semester. What n"1'ay"*noti ttoine under the Regulations of the University cannot. done by invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court l..funde.r Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Article 226 is ' not meant to avoid or circumvent the process of law and the Wpirovisions of the statute. Courts do not interfere with the it C »:1~ decisions of the authorities as the educationai institutions and Board/University are best fitted to examine the rn_atter:i7.._The jurisdiction under Article 226 is not intended illegalities, but to strike at them.
10. The petitioners have not putiin :'reiqu_ir-ed' attendance as per the reievant: f-Eiiles. i'-Therefore;Ztheyflare not' eligibie to appear in the examination, The writ petitions fail and they are accordiii.__i§ly ciisr;1iisse.d*...r"KHowever, the 3"' respondent»~Coliege_ is directed to iadfnitiitheiipetitioners to 11 Year PUC if desire 'them to appear for the examination" bi':-cori*i'erp"eligi1:5le'"'in accordance with the relevant Riiilesi. The Ps.No.6 1 72 1 -35 / 20 10 are not entitled foridueclara-tioiiv iofiresuits of the examination taken the}cr'1~3'.;.p:u_?I'::1;aI1t interim order passed in the said c'a._ses," "No coistsg ._ Sd/~ JUDGE