AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Antony Dominic, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, counsel appearing for Respondents 1 to 4 and the standing counsel appearing for the University.
While the first Petitioner was undergoing 6th semester course and Petitioners 2 and 3 were in the 4th semester of B. Tech, they were placed under suspension. First and second Petitioners were placed under suspension for 15 days each and the 3rd Petitioner was placed under suspension for 10 days. Although initially they were permitted to appear in the semester examination, they were later prevented from attending the examination for the reason that the University declined to condone their shortage of attendance.
At that stage, they approached this Court and filed WP (C) No. 21549/10. By Ext.P10 judgment rendered on 29th of July, 2010, the writ petition was disposed of directing that the Vice Chancellor should reconsider the request of the Petitioners for condonation of shortage of attendance taking a lenient attitude towards the students. Accordingly, the matter was reconsidered and Ext.P11 order was passed by the Vice Chancellor. This order shows that since the period of suspension was not regularised, shortage of attendance of the Petitioners exceeded the condonable limit, and therefore, the University was not in a position to consider the request of the Petitioners for condonation of shortage of attendance. Consequential order passed by the College is produced as Ext.P13 series. It is upon issuance of Exts.P11 and P13 that this writ petition was again filed.
The main contention raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners is that, in the semesters in question, there were 69 working days. It is stated that minimum required attendance is 75%, and if so, the Petitioners should have had 52 days of attendance. According to the learned Counsel, Petitioners had attendance of 49 days, 49.5 days and 47 days respectively. It is stated that even after excluding the period of their absence, the shortage of attendance in so far as the Petitioners are concerned was only of 3 days, 2.5 days and 5 days respectively. According to the counsel, when request for condonation of shortage is made, it is liable to be considered in the light of Clause 8 of the Regulations governing B. Tech Degree Course and if the request was so considered, the shortage was well within the condonable limits. Therefore, it is contended that the view taken in Ext.P11 is erroneous and warrants interference.
The claim of the Petitioners for condonation of absence has to be dealt with in terms of Clause 8 of the Regulations which lays down the eligibility for appearing in the B. Tech Examinations. In terms of the Regulations, a student should have not less than 75% attendance for appearing in a semester examination. However, condonation is permissible subject to satisfaction of the five conditions mentioned in the regulations, which reads as under:
i) His conduct must be satisfactory.
ii) The shortage shall not be more than 10; of actual working days.
iii) Condonation is given only on medical grounds.
iv) The condonation shall be granted subject to rules and procedures prescribed by the University from time to time.
v) It is open to the Vice Chancellor to grant condonation of shortage of attendance on the recommendation of Principal.
Therefore, if these conditions are satisfied by a student, he is eligible to have his request for condonation considered. A reading of Ext.P11 order passed by the Vice Chancellor does not show that the request of the Petitioners were considered in the light of the aforesaid Regulations. On the other hand, the Vice Chancellor appears to have given more stress on the period of suspension rather than the remaining days of absence, which according to the Petitioners were eligible for condonation, in view of the fact that those days of absence were supported by medical records. It that be the case, necessarily the request of the Petitioners is to be reconsidered.
In order to enable the Vice Chancellor to do so, I quash Exts.P11 and P13, and direct that, on the production of a copy of this judgment, 7th Respondent shall reconsider the applications made by the Petitioners and forwarded by the Principal of the College and pass appropriate orders in the matter. Needless to say that in the process, possible leniency will be shown and orders will be passed at any rate within 7 days of production of a copy of this judgment.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.