AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Shanmugam, J.—The petitioner is a student of Engineering Course. He has prayed for issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling
for the proceedings of the third respondent dated 30.12.1998 along with the memo dated 27.10.1998 and quash the same and direct the third
respondent to permit the petitioner to pursue the 8th Semester Course and take the 7th and 8th Semester Examination at the end of 8th Semester
Course to be held during May 1999. By virtue of the interim order of this Court, the petitioner had completed the 8th Semester Course and has
taken the 7th and 8th Semester Examination in May 1999 and the results are yet to be published.
The question that arises for consideration is as to whether a student who represents a college in Sports events is eligible for attendance.
The petitioner, besides having good academic record, in good in sports also. He represented the college teams of Cricket, football and hockey.
As a member of the college team, he had participated in the inter-collegiate matches. After obtaining permission from the authorities concerned, the
petitioner''s participation in the Sports events is not disputed by the first respondent. According to him, participation in Sports events is permitted
only on the students willingness and there is no; compulsion for any student to participate in the Sports events. The days of his absence can be
condoned taking into account his participation in the Sports events. According to the first respondent, the petitioner had secured only 66.67% of
attendance as against the stipulated minimum 75% during the 7th Semester.
On behalf of the University, Learned Counsel submits that a candidate should secure not less than 75% attendance in terms of total number of
working days. However, it shall be open to the Syndicate to grant a candidate who has failed to keep 75% attendance for ''valid reasons. Such an
exemption can be availed of only once by a candidate during the entire Course of study. Absence due to sickness, representing the college in
seminars and other activities can be considered as valid reasons. However, no exemption can be granted to such candidates who have put in less
than 66% of attendance. Such candidates shall repeat the course when it commences in. the next academic year.
I have heard the Counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. The University Regulations dealing with the duration of the course say that a
candidate shall be permitted to appear for the examinations only if he secures not less than 75% of attendance in terms of total number of working
days. The University Grants Commission guidelines dealing with working days states that the University shall not only lay down the syllabus for
each course, but also the manner of its implementation, namely through number of lectures, tutorials, lecture sessions, seminars, field work, project
etc. Students shall be encouraged to study some part of the syllabus themselves and shall be given assignments so as to make use of the library or
laboratory etc. Clause 3(4) of the Guidelines states that the lecture shall be supplemented by tutorials/problem solving sessions (which shall be
around 25% of the lecture workload), term papers etc., so that the student derives maximum benefit from his program of study. Clause 3(5) states
as follows:
Minimum number of lectures, tutorials, seminars, practical etc., which a student shall require to attend before being eligible for appearing at the
examination shall be as prescribed by the University, which on an average, shall not be less than 75% of the total number of lectures, tutorials,
seminars, practical, etc.
From the above requirements, it is clear that the classroom lectures are not alone the criteria for the purpose of attendance. Besides classroom
lectures, there are sessions, term papers, tutorials, seminars, practicals etc. Therefore, it is possible for a student who lacks five days of attendance
to get it supplemented through problem-solving sessions, tutorials, etc.
The college has benefited by the petitioner''s extra curricular activities like representing the College team. Therefore, it must be the duty of the
college to see to it that such students are not deprived of the coaching and should have made alternative arrangements to have tutorials for those
students who have missed the classes for no fault of theirs. It is incorrect to state that the students have opted to participate in the Sports events
willingly. It is a privilege for a student to be selected to represent his college team. This privilege is conferred after days of hard work and practice.
He had been selected out of thousands of students after stiff competition. That achievement of the petitioner cannot be belittled by stating that there
was no compulsion for a student to participate in the Sports events. It is the duty and obligation of the University authorities to prepare the students
in the non-academical and extra curricular activities too. The District, National and International level Sports events are conducted not only to
enable the students representing their colleges, to get the medals, but also to develop the spirit of co-operation and integration of students. In my
view, the emphasis on the academic side of a student career alone is just one side of the picture and the University and the College authorities
should endeavor and encourage the students who have the necessary aptitude and capacity on the side of the Sports activities as well. As a matter
of fact, examples are not wanting where grace marks and additional marks are freely given to the students who participate in Sports events
successfully.
Coming to the facts of the case, I find that the attendance that falls short in this case is nominal, namely five days. It is also stated that the
petitioner had been very good in academic studies, having completed all the Semesters without any break in First Class. Therefore, considering the
eligibility and provision for having tutorials and extra classes, and considering the fact that the petitioner had been permitted to represent the college
in Sports events, the authorities should have provided compensatory classes, if necessary. The failure on the part of the authorities in this regard
cannot affect the student. Such a student should not be deprived of the results of the 8th Semester examination for lack of five days of attendance.
The petitioner has rightly pointed out, that the Principal has treated the actual period of participation in the games as period of attendance.
In Sheela Christina Raj v. Syndicate, University of Madras and two others (1993 W.L.R. 703), a learned single Judge of this Court had taken
the view that it is open to the respondent-University to consider whether it is possible for the petitioner in that case to make up the deficiency of
attendance and considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, she was permitted to write the examination. For all these reasons, the impugned
orders are set aside and the petitioner is permitted to take his 8th Semester Course from 11.1.99 and take the examination for the 7th and 8th
Semester Course in May 1999. Since the petitioner had already taken the examinations in May 1999, the results of the said examination shall be
published. The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P. No. 595 of 1999 is closed.