Karnataka High Court
Preetham Bhargav K S vs S B R R Mahajan First Grade College on 31 October, 2008
Equivalent citations: AIR 2009 (NOC) 1245 (KAR.), 2009 (1) AIR KAR R 517
Author: S.Abdul Nazeer
Bench: S.Abdul Nazeer
"E X 9'" W;§g¢2;am>h*i\w;.§;¢§;§%% IN THE HIGH COURT 0? KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE _ DATED THIS TIIE 315"' })M OF oc";'0BIa1z,~éevOi8&'T 75;' =7 * ~ THE IIONUBLE AJRJUSTIcE.s:ABf1)z;?L Be-tw. een: " E Preetham Bhargav K.S., SEO KN. Shivanand, Agedabout21ye;s;s,v._ _ _ - Rz'a0pp:Gove1éinn€f;g1t Hos'pit£iL"" . Balagadi Clfikkatxlagaiur IZ}isi1'ict%--'5?f'7..1_?6;" V Petitioner. (By Sri Hagaifaja. % And: r I S, B.F,.R~ Méimgan Grade College, «_ Jéqfalaicshxxfipurmxg " _Mysor e=, xReptd_ By the Principal, A Pr«:§i§.,1_'Ial§§}:ra'I<ara RV. 2 'I7§_1Le'i~Z§:;f;fstrar, ~Un'i;_versity of Mysore, A. KaphardBh,avan, Mysore. Respondents.
% sin' mi. Raman, Adv. for R1 Sn" T.P. Rajendra Kumar Sungay, Adv. for R2) This Writ Petition is flied under Articles 226 & ' Constitution, praying to direct R1 and R2 to allow pgiitiotsef to attend the 6"' semester exaniination and po_em.1it_him' to Vappear Vfflff remaining examination, etc. This Writ Petition coming on far 3 Group this day, the Court made the fciigitsaiiig;
Petitioner had joined for the study of B.Com 2005-2006.
The first is respondent-
University. three years course consisting A six' has completed five semesters SUCCéSt3i%i:lHyf Tizg was issued with a hall ticket (if§.£111$X1I1'"§".3_§ "B*'.) to the 6"' semester exaiiiisiation from 21.5.2098. However, he was not perrriiiteéihmi tiiiéiiiiexamination on the ground that he had Véifiazrrtage (Sf in the 6"' semester. Since several students of i Hegpoiidiezit-college were not pemiitted to appear for the iéxaxmnaflvvi '03! on the ground of shortage of attendance, it appears that the University has clarified to the college students who have put in more than 60% attendance can apgieae. " " ii' "
the examination subject to payment of eefisaiii Petitioner was not permttte' cl to appear 'for iii had less than 50% attendance in ¢n.«:j fo£ me"
'Accounting and Finance'. Thetefeme, ifiledithisi writ petiticm seeking the following reliefs: i' e. , .15 ~ .
"(i) issuei'.evi§r'i£ the respondent
330. 1» --and iiiiiew to attend the 6"' him to appear for rernaihing exe.trs5n££iiea. ii '=._ ' ' A pass ~ag:y oiher'----efder or direction 11:31 this I-Ioqfbie ii " Ceusjii fit in the circumstances efthe case, in the
2 jefsiiee and equity."
AA Conn; has passed an interim order dated 3.6.2008 the petitioner to appear for the examination subject to iesutt efthe writ petition. The remondents were directed not to E K\%..
V} announce the result ofthe said examination without the V' "
Cami.
3. The college has filed its oegectieng though palm' 'oner had over all 2 in only 58% attendance in vthe subjetfi and Flzzance'. Therefore, he was not eligible $t~_:_:' in examination.
4. leegazee eg§§ii:ioeérlll§vou1d contend that si1tfilarly»pl3€=§ll by the respondents to appear Though hall ticket was issued 'to for 3112 examinatirm in fitted to attend the said examination. It is of the respondents in not perxniiiing the in the examination is arbitrary and illegal. K ll the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the tegmxidents subnait that petitioner had put in 53% attendance in the u 'Aecounting and Finance'. Having regard to the relevant 4.5 in the case of a candidate who represents Statc!Nation in Sports:'NCC;NSS!Cultm'a1 of Institution cozmcemeci In extraaydinar-'y ca.aes',._ attendance upto a ma2:i1nu111__1$f._25_»_ days on {he rcconnncndafievn and [i3?i(3Y of the Head ofthe 'i _
8. It is clear that each semester has to of calculating attendance and a less than 75% of the number of paperisubject in each se:né;=;ge§i;;.<;;éde& fquazagz to in the examination. It is also zflglear of the Llniversitl' is empowered to bond' shortage" of A cc 1113-10 15% on the recommendation ol"fi1é college on payment ofthe fee prescribed by I " Regulations also make it clear that there shall ' li10: ifaiiendance is below 60% during any semeszer
33..
'N:
ln's./her izlstitutionftlniversity, Kamataka l any ofiicial shortage oi'matte:1da:';ce'v*----:::'_'v ll uptoamaximumoflfi days in asien1$te:._111ay-:' _ be condoned, based on the recé2gnm§2a*id:ai6a_ ~ ' Q and prior permission of the Head"-of th¢_.j_* "
to encourage talented 'off. A H actual in a semsetefjrnay be 'A for any reasen. A candidate, who does not satisfy the 'a V of attendance, is not eligible to take examination of me i"
semester. The Regulations also make it cleai fails to satisfy the requirement of attendan, _ ce' Vi repeat that semester when offered year. It is only when {he in Sports/NCCfNSSf(?1?1:itiii'::~:li:. shortage of attendance a semester may be condoned, prior permission of the Head of "e is to achieve academic discipline It is the foundation for any course of xwiiistudy. Tiaat is name University has provided for a minimum "a semester. What may not be done under the of the Universitygeanziot be done by invoking the T of the High Court under Article 226 of the ra,
2. L is Constitution. Article 226 is not meant to avoid or circumvegr; -. V process of law and the provisions of the statute. It is L" ' H Couxt does not interfere with the decisions of educational institutions and the Board{IJ:;iver§ity:'a;'e besfifiszgd 'Ion examine the matter. The Court srmu1d'<n§;t éecision anthem. The Apex THAKUR VS'. LTMVERSITY_,QF & orgmsu. AIR 3:3 $227221, mega sz~;a§;n's deficiency in the matter :5 in each of the subjects, it competence of the Pn'ncipal to . the. it has been fiuther held that where to condone the deficiency in am iralftimilar limit, but snusemrs deficiency in prescribed limit of condonahle deficiency, i:§. was jutisdiction or competence of the Principal to . _ ' ._sucI 1"excessive deficiency. Ceuxt in the case of SATISII VS. VICE A "'!:fI'IANCE'LLOR --. me 1994 KAR 1191, has held that attendance i W. '£0 is necessary to achieve academic discipline and _ A' excellence. Recognising its importance, the ii i for 3 minimum attendance and also pryovideBf3rK_e$«:creis'e~.. 'of A f discreticn by the Vice Chancellor, te,cQ_ndone* a further given circumstances. Beyond {he himself has no power to «the such av it is neither advisable not their em.
ordinary jurisdicticfii heyend permissible limits thereby and discipline and within the regulatory province of (xffslleig-es erzzi Inet,*2sr10.?lk" ANOTHER VS. ETIRLOSKAR cfairm. (1996) 4 sec 453, the Apex Court wi§i1eeeeli::;,%ie&:h the eower ofthe High Court to issue writs under illiiiiigérticle 226 has held that the power conferred by Articles 226227 ' designated to effectuate the law, to enforce the rule of law the several aufllorfi ies and orgam cfthe State act in E3;
11 accordance with law, it camot be invoked fer authorities to act contrary to law. In Ks. 3301:: VS. s:r.4n«: o1=*eemzL4rz§4;s*I;§:a§a4" 5:, OTHERS' --» AIR 2002 SC 444, the Apex aeeaeee e it is not pennissible for the High ceuefF%tede-eee ee me e % 'gr contrary to the statutory pmviségns. V'
10. material on record clearly peezeeeer 'm 53% eeeedeeee in the subjecfe is not the case of the petitioner 60% of attendance in the said sufajec; .Vcez§"bix1xed""ree;ding of the aforesaid Regulation eeeeeeee ieeaeete order to appear £11 the examinaxion in to attend not less than 75% ofthe number of in each paper/subject in each semester. The ' W H " is empowered to condone shortage of attendance 13%. Therefore, petitioner has to mend net less than 50% of kj enemy of working hours,/periods in each paperfsubject in eeeh Ex.
i.
\L\% semester after condonaxien of shmtage of attendance 119-10 15% by the Viee-Chancellor. Merely because the petitioner has put in over ail 78% attendance, he is not efigible to appear in the examinaiion in question. A candidate, who does not saiisfy the requi1en:en1fl ~ V attendance, shall not be eligible :0 take the examinat.iVen7'-;:§fVV coneemed semester as a whole nor is he eligi¥§1eApte'ge-t "
the next semester. Since the V' attendance in one ofthe subjects, the we ixiflgxef permit!" ing the petitioner to take exam"
IE. for the petitioner that the 'p:!2iced have been permitted to appear in merit. Pe-titioner has not :5 that a student, who has put in less one of the subjects, has been allowed to Vtajce the "' in question. As noticed above, this Court W " 'T respondents to permit the petitioner to appear for cotmary t? the relevant reguiations. Even if the 14 benefit of such right, then there is discrimination, and a "
may be issued to ensure that he also gets a similar benefit, 'V 'A person who does not have a right is given a " _ then the illegal act itself will be struck dmsm can: lie a mandamus to repeat the inegal act to omen: L » T In UNION or {am 'sf :,,_{_45'"QTHER"A INTE1m:4:rIoNAL 1'I?41DIN(:'AA..C_'0_.-.&.' }QT0i'%R_§"(2003) 5 sec 437, it has beep ?:#i.'3'l'('i;:::Vv."'fi $'.,!31'1.v'i«w'-3'1': s ' ' "Evenfiif it was any improper pmnfissioty such permissions vulne_rabie "s,e thirty-two vessels ate come to the aid of the 'V :3 T3319 wrongs do not make a right. A party since something wreng has been in case; direction should m given for wmng. It weuld not be setting a wrong would be perpetuating another wrong. In A' there is no discrimination involved. The t ofequal treatment on the logic of Article 14 of ' the Cornstitutitm cannot be pressed into service in such TE '$3 'E5 cases. What the cencepfi of equal treaiment presupposes is existence of similar legal foothold. If does not countenance repetition of a action: -'tLf:j.. < bring both wrongs on a par. Even if i's * " 2 ~ _. A accepted thax a wrong has been sonig 2 V' other cases by introducing a of n¢ga§ii?a_ equality, the respondents carmot They bare to establish strégigth of cg_es¢; eg1 some" H other basis and not by
12. I do not the result, writ petition Therefore, the petitioner is ent:ti=§c§kVjVf¢;--L%% of the results of the examination' to an interim order dated 3'.j$;§90$. ghe is directed to permit the pefiflo;1é;'T»_{0TA semester of B.Cem degee conurse in the month of January, 2009. Ne costs. % 1" = AABMMSI 12008 Sdlt Iudqe