Mrs. Mohana vs The Registrar, Bharathiyar University, The Controller of Examinations, Bharathiyar University and The Principal, Government Law College

S.S. Subramani, J.—This Writ Petition is filed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ, directing the Respondents 1 and 2 to publish the result of 4th and 5th Year Law Examinations, and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.

Petitioner is a student of 5th year B.L. Degree Course in Coimbatore Government Law College, the duration of the Course being 1991-92 to 1995-96. She has completed the duration of the Course, though she has not so far completed the Degree, for, she has to get through 4th and 5th year B.L. Degree Subjects. When she was about to write 4th year Examination, she was prohibited from doing so in view of lack of attendance. It is said that later she was permitted to write the 4th year Examination after receiving a letter of undertaking from her on the instructions of the Principal. It is said that in the letter of under taking, Petitioner has explained the reason for lack of attendance, and she also produced Medical Certificate to prove the reason for the loss in attendance. It is said that she has also requested the authorities to condone the lack of attendance. The University has with-held the results. On enquiry, she was informed that since the Principal has reported to the University that she has attended classes only for 54 days during the 4th year, her results have been with-held. It is her grievance that the statement by the Principal is not correct, and in fact, she has attended the classes on 108 days out of total 180 working days. It is her case that she has more than 60% attendance. It is her further case that the University would not have with-held her results but for the wrong reporting done by the Principal. The Petitioner filed O.S. 1706 of 1995 on the file of District Munsif''s Court, Coimbatore, for declaring that she is eligible to write the 4th year December Supplementary Examination. On the basis of the interim relief granted by the District Munsif, she was permitted to write the 4th year December Supplementary Examinations. But the result was with-held for the same reason, namely, lack of attendance. During 5th year also, she was prohibited from writing the examination. She filed O.S. 2092 of 1996 in the same Court, and as per interim direction of the Court in I.A.1314 & 1315/96, she was permitted to write the examination. But her results have been with-held pending disposal of O.S. 2092 of 1996. It is said that according to the attendance register maintained by the College, she has attended the classes for the 5th year, for 138 days out of 180 days, which is 76%. It is her case that the Principal has submitted a false Report before the University that there is lack of attendance. The action of the Principal is mala fide, and it is with an intention to spoil the future of the Petitioner. It is said that as per Proforma v. of the University, candidate who has obtained 65% to 74% attendance is eligible for being admitted. Such candidates are eligible to apply for condonation by paying Rs. 150/- towards condonation fee. It is said that the Petitioner has satisfied the condition of Proforma v. and she is, therefore, eligible to appear for the Examination. The reason for the mala file intention is said to be a complaint filed by the Petitioner against the Principal. The Inspector of Police refused to register the same. She filed a Writ Petition before this Court, and on direction by this Court a case was registered, the same was referred to ''as mistake of fact''. Petitioner says that Criminal Revision Case has been filed and the same is pending before this Court. The Principal is now working as Director of Legal Studies. He is influencing the University not to issue applications and hall-tickets to the Petitioner, in spite of the fact that she has the required attendance. She filed requests before the present Principal, who also recommended to the University to send applications and chalan for paying examination fees. But the University has turned down the recommendation, and has not issued the application and hall-ticket. It is under the above circumstances, Petitioner has come to this Court for the aforesaid relief.

At the time when the Writ Petition was filed, the Examination for 5th year was to commence on 8-12-97. No interim order was given in favour of the Petitioner, and so she could not write the examination.

When the matter came up for admission, I directed the learned Additional Government Pleader to take notice, and on his getting instructions, the entire matter was heard.

I do not think that I will be justified in interfering at this stage, when the Petitioner herself has invoked the jurisdiction of the Civil Court by filing two suits, referred to supra. In both the suits, the relief sought for is, to declare that she is entitled to write 4th and 5th year Examinations. Learned Counsel for Petitioner himself admitted that the above suits are ripe for trial and evidence has also been recorded in part. According to me, the parallel remedy could have been avoided. The questions whether the Petitioner has got full attendance or not, and whether she is entitled to condonation for loss of attendance, are now pending before the Civil Court. It is not disputed by the Petitioner that there is no Order condoning the loss of attendance, though she has applied for the same. The question as to what is the total number of days, she has attended the College is a matter in issue before the Civil Court, and regarding the same, some evidence has also been taken by that Court. The contention in the Writ Petition that the Petitioner has 60% attendance in the 4th year is a matter in issue which cannot be decided at this stage. There is no record before this Court to show that what the Principal has stated is wrong. Likewise, whether the Petitioner has secured 75% attendance in the fifth year is also a subject matter in issue in O.S. No. 2092 of 1996.

The Writ Petition is also not maintainable for another reason. Though the allegations are against the Principal, and his actions are challenged on the ground of mala fides, the person responsible for the alleged mala fide is not impleaded in his individual capacity. It is the present Principal of the Law College who has been impleaded. As against him, the Petitioner has no allegations.

The relief prayed for, viz., for declaring results of Petitioner for 4th & 5th year Law Examination, is premature. On going by the averments in the Writ Petition, it could be seen that it is only on the basis of the interim Order, she was allowed to appear for the 4th year Supplementary Examination and also the 5th year Examination. After writing the Examinations on the basis of interim Orders, she cannot ask this Court to give direction to publish the Results. The interim order has been passed by the Civil Court. Again, if she is not eligible to write the Examination, it is a matter to be decided by the Civil Court. Directing the Authorities to publish results will amount to indirectly holding that she is qualified to write the examination. That is the matter in issue before the Civil Court. Under the above circumstances, I do not think that this Court should interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. WMP 29388 of 1997 for interim direction is also dismissed consequently.