Madras High Court
Nithya vs University Of Madras, And Others on 14 September, 1994
Equivalent citations: AIR1995MAD164, AIR 1995 MADRAS 164, (1996) 2 MAD LW 856 (1996) WRITLR 802, (1996) WRITLR 802
ORDER
1. By consent of parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
2. The petitioner herein is a student oflhe Ethiraj College for Women, Madras for B.A. Corporate Secretaryship (Evening Class) Three Years Course from 1991-92 to 1993-94. For the final academic year, that is, 1993-94, she has completed 55.75% of attendance. However, due to the fact that she was married on 18-10-1993 and shortly thereafter, she was conceived and as such she was suffering from morning sickness and was indisposed due to nausea throughout the day, she was not able to attend the college regularly. In the mean-time, as the final, year examination of three years course commenced on 8-4-1994, she approached the third respondent -- the Principal, Ethiraj College for Women on 6-4-1994 to write the examinations. But, she was informed that her hall ticket was withheld. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court for a writ of certiorari-fied mandamus to call for the records on the file of the third respondent pertaining to the letter dt. 6-4-1994 impugned in this writ petition and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to sit for the examinations which was scheduled to commence from 8-4-1994.
3. The writ petitioner was permitted to write the examination by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court in W.M.P. No. 10043 of 1994. Accordingly, the third respondent issued the hall ticket to the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner appeared for the examinations but, however, her results have been withhold pending disposal of the writ petition.
4. It is submitted by Mr. R. Gandhi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that due to the pecular facts and circumstances of the case that the petitioner was married during the last term of her course and she was conceived and was suffering from morning sickness and other indispositions including nausea throughout the day, she was not in a position to regularly attend the classes. In any event, the petitioner has attended 55.75% attendance. As per the Madras University Regulations regarding attendance, learned senior counsel referred to clause 2(a) relating to non-semester courses, which says that all candidate must put in 75% of attendance for Arts, Science, Commerce, Engineering and Law Courses. However, clause 2(ii) states that the candidates who have put in not less than 50% of attendance may be permitted to proceed to the next year of the course and they may be permitted to take next September or subsequent University examination by paying the prescribed condonation fee without putting in further attendance. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the rule with regard to the condonation of 50% of attendance may be applied in the case of the petitioner as an _ exception and that she need not once again write the September examination as she has already written her examination in April 1994 by virtue of the order of this Court. On the other hand, respondents 1 and 2 have filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is stated as follows:
"It is submitted that normally the candidate should have 75% of attendance including condonable limit of 12.5% of attendance. Therefore, if the candidate has 62.5% of attendance it is within condonation limits and the application for condonation together with attendance details should be forwarded through the Principal of respective college. Candidates who are in shortage of attendance beyond the condonation limit are not eligible "to appear for the respective University examination. The candidate has obtained only 55.75% attendance which is not within condonation limits.
With regard to averments in para 4 it is humbly submitted that the hall ticket of Mrs. J. Nithya (Register No. 1107479) was sent to the college along with other candidates for March 1994 examination. The Principal of the College withheld the hall ticket of the above candid ate for lack of attendance. In III Year of B.A. Corporate, one application oriented subject paper is 'Institutional Training', for which the examination for candidate is conducted by the department of the respective colleges. The awarded marks shall be sent to the University. The above candidate has obtained 75 marks' The same was forwarded by the college to us.
With regard to averments in Para 5 it is humbly submitted that cut of total number of 225 days the candidate should have attended 168 days to have minimum required attend-ance, whereas the petitioner has attended only 126 days and was absent for 99 days and it is not within the condonable limit."
5. Learned counsel for the first res-pondent, University of Madras submitted that as per the attendance regulation applicable to the petitioner even if 50% of attendance is condoned as the rule stands, she has to appear for the next September or subsequent University examination by paying the prescribed condonation fee without putting in further attendance. There is force in the contention of Miss K. Geetha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent that as the rule stands the University is bound by the said regulations. However, in the instant case, it is clear that the petitioner during the last course of her academic year for B.A. Corporate Secretaryship was married on 18-10-1993 and she was conceived shortly thereafter and as a result she was suffering from morning sick- ness and other indispositions and, therefore, she was not in a position to attend the classes regularly. The reasons given by the petitioner for not attending the classes have to be accepted as they are genuine and natural consequences of married life. However, there is an impediment as far as University is concerned as long as Regulation 2(ii) is there. Taking into the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that it is a fit case to give an exemption from the operation of the said rule as the petitioner has completed 55.75% of attendance and as such she is entitled to condonations of attendance by paying necessary condonation fee to the University. In this connection it is observed that as large number of women students are joining University courses and the type of situation in which the petitioner was involved viz., she was married, may also occur in case of any woman students. The directive principles of State policy contain in parly IV of our Constitution by Art. 41 says that the State shall, within the limits of its economic capacity, make of active provision for secur ing education. If equal opportunity is given to women for education, they can stand on equal terms with men. Article 42 of the Directive Principles of State Policy says that the State shall make provision for securing just and humane conditions of work and for maternity relief. Maternity relief in case of girl student will include leave. The University of Madras, a creature of statute can make provisions for granting leave to girl students, if they get married during the period of study and lose their minimum attendance. It is high time that the regulations that have been framed by the University are modified taking into consideration such situations where women student are married during the last course of their academic career and due to pregnancy they may not be in position to attend and complete the course. In such cases, if women students have completed the minimum attendance, it is always open to the University to condone the attendance by payment of condonation fee and allow the women candidates to appear for the University examinations and complete the course. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to pay the condonation fee to the first respondent within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order and thereafter the first respondent shall publish the result of the petitioner.
6. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition is allowed. No costs.
7. Petition allowed.