Delhi High Court
Ms. Manju Rani vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 30 March, 2011
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 30th March, 2011
+ WP(C) NO.3323/2010
MS. MANJU RANI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashok Upadhayay, Advocate
Versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat with Ms. Latika
Choudhary and Ms. Urvashi,
Advocates.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may No
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported No
in the Digest?
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The petitioner, in July 2009 was admitted in the two year diploma for Elementary Teacher Education (ETE) Course in the respondent no.3 District Institute of Education and Training (DIET) affiliated to the respondent no.2 State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT). The syllabus of the said course comprises of theoretical work / school experience / assignment / workshops and practical works. The W.P.(C) No.3323/2010 Page 1 of 5 School Experience Programme (SEP) is of a one full term of the course and is conducted from October to December each year. The students of the said course are required to attend 85% of the theory classes and 100% of the SEP and are, under the rules of the respondent, not entitled to appear in the examination or to be promoted from the first to the second year unless have the said minimum attendance. Relaxation of 5% can be granted by the Principal and of 10% by the Director SCERT on medical ground or extraordinary circumstances.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that she is a National Level Player of Netball and has represented the State of Haryana in the said sport and has been participating in various tournaments; that she attended 61% of her classes in the first year and appeared in the internal examinations held between 19th April, 2010 till 30th April, 2010. Upon being denied the admit card for the first year end term examination scheduled to commence from 13th May, 2010 for the reason of being short attendance, the present writ petition was filed to issue mandamus to the respondents to allow her to appear in the first year end term examination.
W.P.(C) No.3323/2010 Page 2 of 5
3. This petition came up before this Court first on 13th May, 2010 when while issuing notice thereof, as an interim measure and without creating any special equities in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner was permitted to appear in the first year end term examination on the condition that her result shall be kept in a sealed cover.
4. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit in which it is reiterated that under the Rules of the respondent a student is not allowed to sit in the examination if has less than 85% attendance in SEP even after relaxation. It is pleaded that the course being a professional one, insistence on attendance is a must. It is further pleaded that the petitioner has only 75% attendance in theory classes and 71% attendance in SEP and thus even if her case were to be considered for relaxation, she does not make the mark. It is yet further pleaded that the petitioner never informed the respondent of her participation in any sport and only upon being stopped from taking the examination produced a letter from the Haryana Netball Association.
5. On 17th January, 2011 the counsel for the petitioner was directed to inform the Court the performance of the petitioner in the Commonwealth Games, 2010 in which she claimed to have participated. Direction was W.P.(C) No.3323/2010 Page 3 of 5 also made to disclose the result of the examination undertaken by the petitioner under interim orders of this Court.
6. It was informed on the next date that the petitioner had not secured any medal in the Commonwealth Games and result of the examination undertaken by the petitioner under interim orders in this petition was produced in a sealed cover. The petitioner is shown to have passed the first year end term examination.
7. Attention of the counsel for the petitioner has been invited to the Maharishi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur JT 2010 (7) SC 179 laying down that no mandamus can be issued to an Educational Institute to act in contravention of the rules. Once the rules require the minimum attendance for appearance in the examination or for promotion and the petitioner admittedly not making the said mark, no mandamus as sought can be issued. Attention of the counsel for the petitioner was also invited to the judgment dated 10th January, 2011 of the Division Bench of this Court in LPA 662/2010 titled University of Delhi Vs. Vandana Kandari laying down that exemption from attendance on the ground of maternity leave also cannot be allowed.
W.P.(C) No.3323/2010 Page 4 of 5
8. The counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has during the pendency of this petition also attended the classes of the second year and would now end up wasting two years if made to repeat the first year. However, the petitioner, notwithstanding the clarity in law, if chooses to prefer the petition such risks are inherent.
9. The position qua attendance is now no longer res integra. Reference in this regard may also be made to the judgment of this Court in Vibhor Anand v Vice Chancellor, GGSIPU MANU/DE/3698/2010 whereagainst LPA No.191/2011 was also dismissed vide judgment dated 3rd March, 2011 and to Gagandeep Kaur v. GNCTD MANU/DE/3049/2010.
10. Accordingly, no merit is found in this petition. The same is dismissed. The examination undertaken by the petitioner under interim orders of this Court is accordingly cancelled. No order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) March 30, 2011/M W.P.(C) No.3323/2010 Page 5 of 5