C. Praveen Chander vs The Principal, Sri Venkateswara College of Engineering and The Vice Chancellor, Anna University

D. Murugesan, J.—The petitioner in both the Writ Petitions are one and the same. He joined the First Year B.E.( Electronic and

Communication Engineering) course in Sri Venkateswara College of Engineering, the first respondent herein in the academic year 2002-2003. As

the petitioner did not secure the requisite attendance in 7th Semester course, he was not allowed to take the examination. The Clause 6 of the

Regulations for B.E/B.Tech relating to the requirements for completion of a semester reads as follows:

Clause 6 requirement for completion of a Semester""` 6.1 A candidate who has fulfilled the following conditions shall be deemed to have satisfied

the requirement for completion of a semester.

6.1.1. He/She secures not less than 75% of overall attendance in that semester taking into accounts the total number of periods in all courses put

together attended by the candidate as against the total number of periods in all courses offered during that semester.

However, a candidate who could secure attendance between 65% and 74% only in the current semester due to medical reasons

(hospitalization/accident specific illness) or due to participation in college/University/State/National/International level Sports events with prior

permission from the Principal shall be given exemption from the prescribed attendance requirement and he/she shall be permitted to appear for the

current semester examinations

6.2 Candidates who do not complete the semester (as per Clause 6.1), will not be permitted to write the end semester examination and are not

permitted to go to next semester. They are required to repeat the incomplete semester in the next academic year

As per the said Clause, a candidate who secured not less than 75% of overall attendance in a particular semester is eligible to take the

examination. For consideration of condonation, the percentage can be between 65% to 74%. The petitioner had admittedly secured only 54% of

attendance in 7th semester and therefore, he was not eligible to sit for the examination held during November and December,2005. The petitioner

approached this Court in W.P.No.33933/2005 seeking for a direction to condone his absence on medical ground and other duty(sports) and

permit the petitioner to attend and write the practical and theory examination. By interim order dated 21.10.2005, this Court permitted the

petitioner to appear for the practical examinations on 24.10.2005 and 26.10.2005. Thereafter by the subsequent order dated 17.11.2005 this

Court had permitted the petitioner to take the theory examinations. However, this Court had made it clear that the said order as well as the earlier

order dated 21.10.2005 will not give any legal right to the petitioner to claim for publication of the results. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner

had taken the examinations and the results are yet to be published.

The petitioner has again approached this Court in W.P. No.1163/2006 seeking for a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to

attend the 8th semester classes. As the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions are one and the same, they are taken up together and arguments

were heard in common.

In my opinion, both the Writ Petitions cannot be ordered. The law is well settled that in the matter of education, more particularly in the matter

of entitlement to take the examination, the minimum required attendance should be strictly adhered to . The shortage of attendance can be a valid

ground for denial of permission to take the examination. Factually, the petitioner had not secured the minimum required attendance of 75%. Even if

the condonation limited is applied, he has to secure atleast 64% attendance. Virtually, the petitioner has secured only 54% attendance and

therefore, he is not entitled to sit for the examination. Law is well settled that the court would be very slow in interfering with the academic matters.

If the Regulation of the University prescribed a minimum percentage of attendance for entitlement to sit for examination, the Court will not

substitute its own reason for relaxing the minimum number of days of attendance and make the student to sit for the examination.

The petitioner has claimed that the period treatment for illness and he being a sport person, should be accepted while computing the period of

attendance. In my opinion, even those days are given credit to, the petitioner will not secure the minimum required attendance of 64%. As per the

regulations of the University, the authorities are not empowered to condone the delay beyond the minimum required attendance of 64% In that

view of the matter, the petitioner is not entitled to sit for 7th semester examination. Moreover, the relief sought for in this Writ Petition seeking to

condone his absence is impermissible as any direction issued on the basis of the relief, the same would result in directing the University to act

contrary to its own statute. 6. It is also the well settled law that ineligible student should not be allowed to take the examination by order of Court

as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in R.N. Kumar Vs. R.K. Soral, and it has been held in the said judgment as follows:

Occasional aberrations such as these, whereby ineligible students are permitted under Court orders, to undertake Board and/or University

examinations, have caught the attention of this Court many a time. To add to it further, the Courts have almost always observed that the instance of

such aberrations should not be treated as a precedent in future. Such casual discretions by the Court is nothing but an abuse of the process; more

so, when the High Court at its level itself becomes conscious that the decision was wrong and was not worth repeating as a precedent. And yet it is

repeated time and again. Having said this much, we hope and trust that unless the High Court can justify its decision on principle and precept, it

should better desist from passing such orders, for its puts the ""Rule of Law"" to a mockery, and promotes rather the ""Rule of Man"".

All the same, fond hopes were raised in the minds of the students herein. Therefore, we decline to interfere under Article 136 of the constitution.

The S.L.P''s are, accordingly dismissed.

In view of the above, Writ Petition No.33933/2005 is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P.No.36820/2005 is closed.

As the petitioner is not entitled to even sit for 7th Semester in terms of Regulation, he is not entitled to attend the 8th semester without

completing the 7th semester examination. Hence, the relief sought for in W.P.No.1163/2006 also cannot be granted. However, the petitioner is

entitled to repeat the incomplete semester so as to enable him to take the examination in future. Accordingly, W.P.NO.1163/2006 is also

dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P.No. 1290/2006 is closed.