AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.C. Patel, C.J.—In these petitions the students, who have failed in attending the requisite percentage of classes, have challenged the provisions of Clause 9 of Chapter II of Revised Ordinance relating to Conduct and Evaluation of Examinations for Programmes leading on all Bachelor''s/Master''s Degrees and Undergraduate/Post Graduate Diplomas following semester system in Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University. Clause 9 reads as under:-
"9. ATTENDANCE
A student shall be required to have a minimum attendance of 75% or more in the aggregate of all the courses taken together in a semester, provided that the Dean of the school in case of University Schools and Principal/Director in case of University maintained/affiliated institutes may condone attendance shortage up to 5% for individual student for reasons to be recorded. However, under no condition, a student who has an aggregate of less than 70% in a semester shall be allowed to appear in the semester end examination.
Student who has been detained due to shortage of attendance shall not be allowed to be promoted to the next semester and he/she will be required to take re-admission and repeat all courses of the said semester with the next batch of students. The University Enrolment number of such student shall however remain unchanged and he or she shall be required to complete the programme in a maximum permissible period of (n+4) semesters as mentioned in Clause 4(c).
Dean of School/Director/Principal shall announce the names of all students who are not eligible to appear in the semester-end examination, at least 5 calendar days before the start of the semester-end examination and simultaneously intimate the same to te Controller of Examinations.
In case any student appears by default, who in fact has been detained by the Institute, his/her result shall be treated as null and void."
Thus, out of 100% attendance, a student is required to attend at least 75% of the classes. However, under no condition, a student who has an aggregate attendance of less than 70% shall be allowed to appear in the semester-end examination. A perusal of Clause 9 makes it very clear that if there is a shortage of attendance, then the student shall not be allowed to be promoted to the next semester and will be required to take re-admission and repeat all courses of the said semester with the next batch of students. Apparently this provision has been made to ensure that students maintain the standard of education and do not remain negligent in attending the classes.
It may be noted that the grooming up and progressing of the students at the college is an important aspect for assessing the students. Their presence is a must. That system has been recognised all over the world. If the student is not attending the classes regularly, the teacher will not be in a position to watch the progress of that student. Academic authorities are best judges in the field of education to make suitable rules, regulations or ordinances. It is for the college or the university to put the conditions on the students to attend a particular number of classes so as to be satisfied that the student has attended regular classes and he has taken education at the college/school.
Attendance is a must. Curriculum does not mean only examination, but it includes various other aspects such as discipline, behavior in the class room with the teachers and other co-students, answering the questions, time taken for answering the questions etc. These are the relevant aspects to be taken into consideration by a teacher and this can be done only if a student is attending the classes regularly. The University has prescribed 75% minimum for this purpose and it cannot be said that it is not in accordance with law or it is an arbitrary provision.
If any step is taken towards better educational method and standard, not only the Court should not come in the way, but must command and encourage it. Those who fail to maintain such standard round the year may lose the very valuable year of the young career, just as they lose if they fail in the examination. Matters of academic judgment are not for the courts to entertain. Better standards are required for learning and it can be only from experiences and different modalities. Educational institutions are the best judges to impose appropriate restrictions and conditions. Merely because the conditions which are imposed may be found inconvenient to some students, it cannot be challenged as being arbitrary. All the students who are appearing in te examinations have attended classes for not less than 75%. Merely because a few students are before the Court, it cannot be said that the rule or regulation is arbitrary.
It is a settled law that the High Court should ordinarily be reluctant in interfering with the matters relating to educational institutions imparting education since the decisions taken by the academic body are in the nature of policy decisions unless the decisions are found to be unreasonable or arbitrary. It is also required to be noted that the regulations have been incorporated on the basis of experience of actual day-to-day working of the educational institutions. It is also recognised that the Court has limited power to interfere with the internal working of an educational institution imparting education. It is inherent power of the educational institution to make regulations for the purpose of maintenance of not only academic standard, but the manner and method in which it should be done, including the condition of attending the classes. This has a salutary effect of keeping the students on their guard. One must attend the classes for education. If there is an interference, it would amount to permitting the students to prosecute the studies or appear at the examination without attending the classes as required.
Our attention is invited by the learned counsel appearing for the University to the Apex Court''s judgment in Regional Engineering College, Hamirpur and Another Vs. Ashutosh Pandey, , wherein the Court was required to examine such a situation. There, of course, the student did not make any application in the prescribed proforma. However, the Court pointed out that the Principal was right in saying that the had no power to condone the absence in excess of 10%, in addition to 25%. In the instant case, the Principal can condone up to 5% and not beyond that. Therefore, if the attendance is up to 70% and it is approved on condoning 5% of presence by the college authorities or university authorities, it can be taken into consideration by the authorities for permitting a student to appear at the examination and/or prosecute studies further and not otherwise.
We find no reasons to entertain these writ petitions. Hence, they are accordingly dismissed.