Arun Mathew vs The Controller of Examinations University of Calicut, The Deputy Registrar and The Principal Govt. Law College

K. Vinod Chandran, J.—The petitioner, a 9th semester LL B student, is aggrieved by the non-condonation of the shortage of attendance, which, in fact, prevented him from appearing in the 9th semester examination. However, by virtue of an interim order of this Court, the petitioner was permitted to appear for the 9th semester examination, provisionally, subject to the result of the writ petition. It was also directed that the result of the examination shall be published only after obtaining orders from this Court. Admittedly, the petitioner who was a student in the 9th semester LLB had shortage of attendance, since he had attended only 52% of the class as against the minimum required 75%. The condonable limit for attendance shortage is a maximum of 10%, that too, the power to be exercised by the Vice Chancellor. The application filed by the petitioner for condonation of attendance shortage was not forwarded since the petitioner did not have the required minimum of 65% attendance which alone would entail consideration of the application for condonation. The Principal of the 3rd respondent refused to forward the application for the aforesaid reason and the petitioner was before this Court assailing the same and seeking condonation of the shortage of attendance.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he had been given an additional 10% attendance taking into consideration his participation in the National Seminar and National Moot Court competition and that he had attended the remedial classes conducted outside the normal classes stipulated in the course. It is the contention of the petitioner that going by Clause 6 of Ext. P4 circular, it is incumbent upon the Principal to provide additional instructions to the students who have attendance shortage, so as to enable them to appear for the examinations. On the above contentions, petitioner seeks a direction to the University to publish the results of the examinations which he was permitted to appear provisionally by this Court.

The Principal of the College has filed a counter affidavit in which it is admitted that 10% attendance was granted to the petitioner taking into consideration his participation in the National Seminar and National Moot Court competition. However, even after the said additional attendance was included the petitioner''s attendance did not come within the condonable limit, since, even then, he had only 62% attendance as against the minimum required attendance of 75%, and was not within the condonable limit of 10%.

The issue of remedial classes was also dealt with in the counter affidavit and the same was stated to be meant for the students of minorities under SC/ST and OBC(non-Creamy Layer minorities). It was not a remedial class as contemplated in Clause 6.

The learned Standing Counsel for the University would also point out that what clause 6 intended was that persons who had attendance within the condonable limit, could be given additional instruction by the Principal and after such additional instruction, if they satisfy the minimum requirement of 75%, even without a condonation request before the Vice Chancellor, the Principal himself could permit the candidate to appear for the examination. It is also relevant that if such additional instructions has to be given the student would necessarily have to make an application before the Principal for getting such additional instruction so as to cover up his attendance shortage within the condonable limit.

In the present case, nor has any application been made and in any event the petitioner is not a person who had attendance within the condonable limit as is contemplated in Clause 6. The Court''s attention has also been invited to Clause 7 which deals with candidates who have shortage of attendance beyond the condonable limit, which requires repeating the course for making up the shortage of attendance to become eligible for Attendance and Progress Certificate (APC). On going through the relevant clauses, this Court is of the opinion that the interpretation placed by the learned Standing Counsel for the University clause 6 and 7, is perfectly correct and the petitioner who did not have attendance within the condonable limit could not have sought for any additional instructions, nor is it the case of the petitioner that he had made any request. The remedial classes as is evident from the counter affidavit of the 3rd respondent Principal, was for specific category of students and was not entitled to be treated as additional instructions to make up the attendance shortage within the condonable limit.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed. Admittance and participation of the petitioner in the 9th semester examination is of no avail. The petitioner would have to repeat the course and reserving such liberty the writ petition is dismissed leaving the parties to suffer their respective costs.