Kerala High Court
Ajith Chandran vs University Of Kerala on 7 November, 2012
Author: A.M.Shaffique
Bench: A.M.Shaffique
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2013/2ND JYAISHTA 1935
WP(C).No. 28809 of 2012 (A)
--------------------------------------
PETITIONER:
--------------------
AJITH CHANDRAN, AGED 22 YEARS,
S/O CHANDRA BABU, BHASKARALAYAM, PEROOR,
T.K.M. CPO, KAIKKODE, KOLLAM.
BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR,
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
3. THE SYNDICATE, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,
THIRUVANANTHAURAM REPRESENTED BY
ITS CHAIRMAN (VICE CHANCELLOR)-695 001.
4. SREE BUDDHA COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING ,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, PATTOOR,
ALAPPUZHA-690 529.
5. THE PRINCIPAL,
SREE BUDDHA COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING,
PATTOOR, ALAPPUZHA-690 529.
R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM,SC,KERALA UTY.
R4-R5 BY ADV. SRI.B.RENJITHKUMAR
R4-R5 BY ADV. SRI.T.PRADEEP KUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-05-2013,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
AS
WP(C).No. 28809 of 2012 (A)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 7.11.2012
ISSUED BY DR.V.SAJU.
EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 7.11.2012
ISSUED BY DR.V.SAJU EVIDENCING THE TREATMENT OF FEVER.
EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ATTENDANCE DETAILS PUBLISHED BY THE
5TH RESPONDENT IN THE COLLEGE NOTICE BOARD.
EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 8.11.2012 SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER FOR CONDONATION OF SHORTAGE OF
ATTENDANCE BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R5(A): TRUE COPY OF THE B.TECH DEGREE COURSE 2008 SCHEME
REGULATIONS ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R5(B): TRUE COPY OF THE ATTENDANCE STATEMENT RECORDED BY
THE TEACHERS WITH RESPECT TO SEMESTER V ONWARDS.
EXHIBIT R5(C): TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT CONTAINING LAB ATTENDANCE
STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER IN DIGITAL CIRCUITS LAB.
EXHIBIT R5(D): TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST PAGE OF THE ANSWER SHEET OF THE
EXAMINATION CONDUCTED BY THE COLLEGE.
EXHIBIT R5(E): TRUE COPY OF THE ABSENTEE STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER
FOR UNIVERSITY PRACTICAL EXAMINATION FOR DIGITAL LAB.
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
AS
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.
----------------------------
W.P.(C).No. 28809 of 2012
------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2013
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is a student who is undergoing studies in the 4th respondent College of Engineering. While doing his 5th Semester classes he was unable to write the examination on account of shortage of attendance. According to the petitioner he has suffered an accident as evident from Ext.P1. He made an application Ext.P4 for condoning the shortage of attendance of 7 days. But the complaint of the petitioner is that the Principal has not forwarded the application to the Vice Chancellor. Petitioner approached this Court by filing the above writ petition and an interim order was passed by this Court permitting the petitioner to write the examination provisionally. However, so far the shortage of attendance has not been condoned as the Principal has not recommended to condone the shortage of attendance nor has the application been forwarded to the University. Hence this writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the 5th respondent to accept Ext.P4 application and forward the same and for a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to act on Ext.P4 at the earliest W.P.(C).No. 28809 of 2012 2 and also seeking a direction to the respondent to permit the petitioner to appear for the 5th Semester examination.
2. The main contention of the petitioner is that as per the regulations for B.Tech decree course published by the University of Kerala, the principal is bound to recommend the condonation of shortage of attendance and sent the leave application to the Vice Chancellor. Specific reference is made to clause 5.2(iii) of the regulation which reads as under:
"iii) A student will be permitted to appear for the University Examination only if he/she satisfies the following requirements.
a) He/she must secure not less than 75% attendance in the total number of working periods during the first year and in each semester thereafter and shall be physically present for a minimum of 60% of the total working periods. In addition, he/she also shall be physically present in at least 50% of total working periods for each subject.
b) He must earn a progress certificate from the head of the institution of having satisfactorily completed the course of study in the semester as prescribed by these regulations.
c) It shall be open to the Vice-Chancellor to grant condonation of shortage of attendance on the recommendation of the head of the institution in accordance with the followings norms.
d) The attendance shall not be less than 60% of the total working periods.
W.P.(C).No. 28809 of 2012 3
e) He/she shall be physically present for a minimum of 50% of the total working periods.
f) The shortage shall not be condoned more than twice during the entire course.
g) The condonation shall be granted subject to the rules and procedures prescribed by the university from time to time.
h) The condonation for combined 1st and 2nd semesters will be reckoned as a single condonation for attendance purposes."
3. According to the petitioner he has got an attendance of 66.19% in the total number of working periods during the said Semester and the minimum required is only 60%. But according to the principal the petitioner was not physically present in at least 50% of total working periods in each subject and therefore the principal is not recommending the shortage of attendance of the Vice Chancellor. According to the learned counsel as per Clause (c) of regulation 5.2(iii) the Vice Chancellor has the power to condone the shortage of attendance if the petitioner had total attendance of not less than 60% of the total working periods and he was physically present for a minimum of the 50% of the total working periods, in which event the head of the institution was bound to recommend the condonation of shortage of attendance to the Vice Chancellor and the Vice Chancellor ought to have W.P.(C).No. 28809 of 2012 4 considered the same.
4. Counter affidavit is filed by the University and the first respondent as well as the respondents 4 and 5. It is inter alia contended by the University as well as the College Authorities that the regulations cannot be diluted in order to give any benefit to the petitioner. According to them the physical presence in atleast 50% of the total working periods for each subject is a mandatory provision as provided under regulation 5.2(iii)(a) in addition to 75% attendance in the total number of working hours and physical presence for a minimum of 60% of the total working periods. As far as the Principal is concerned, a student will be permitted to appear for the examination only he or she satisfied the requirements as specified under Sub Clause (a). The Principal cannot recommend the condonation the shortage of attendance if the student does not have the physical presence in at least 50% of the total working periods for each subject which cannot be diluted.
5. Having regard to the aforesaid contentions, I heard the learned counsel for petitioner as well as the learned standing W.P.(C).No. 28809 of 2012 5 counsel appearing for the University and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 and 5. The short question that arises for consideration is interpretation of regulations 5.2(iii)(a) to (h) of the regulations produced as Ext.R5(a).
6. On a perusal of Clause 5.2(iii)(a) it is clear that 3 requirements has to be satisfied by a student to write the examination:
1) He or she must require 75% attendance in the total number of working periods in the first year and in each Semester.
2) That he or she shall be physically present for minimum of 60% of the total working periods.
3) He or she shall also be physically present in at least 50% of the total working periods for each subject.
7. The power of the Vice Chancellor to condone the shortage of attendance on the recommendation of the head of the institution is provided under Sub Clause (c) and they have to follow certain norms as specified in Sub Clause (d to h). In respect of attendance he or she shall have attendance of not less than 60% which according to the petitioner, he is having W.P.(C).No. 28809 of 2012 6 66.19%. In respect of physical presence that is the second criteria the minimum required is 50% of the total working periods, which also the petitioner complies with. But as far as the 3rd criteria is concerned that is the physical presence in at least 50% of the total number of working periods in each subject, no provision is made in Sub Clause (c) to (h) to enable the Vice Chancellor to condone such an absence or reduce the minimum presence for each subject.
8. There is a genuine purpose behind not condoning the absence of the students with reference to physical presence in at least 50% of the total working periods for each subject. It cannot be disputed that every student should be equipped with and attend classes in respect of each subject and if there is failure to attend each subject at least by 50%, it may not be open for him to write the examination. As far as the 3rd category is concerned, it is a mandatory requirement and even the Vice Chancellor is not to permitted to the condone the said criteria. Under these circumstances when it is admitted that the petitioner did not have the 50% of the total working periods in every subject, in so far as W.P.(C).No. 28809 of 2012 7 he could not have 50% for the attendance in the digital lab, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to seek a direction as sought for.
9. No doubt in terms of Clause (IV) of Regulation 5.2 the student who is not permitted for appearing in the University examination for a particular Semester due to shortage of attendance shall repeat the Semester when it is offered again. This Clause definitely enable the students to continue the Course by repeating the Semester. The learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 submits that it is open for the petitioner to repeat the Semester in terms of the said Clause.
In the said result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE AS