N.G. Prasannakumar vs Bangalore University and Another

These petitions coming up for preliminary hearing on notice to respondents in ''B'' Group, the following order is made.

The petitioner in the first mentioned petition was a student of Shri Jagadguru Renukacharya College of Arts and Science, studying in II Year B.A. (academic year 1978-79). Even his first year in the decree course was in the same College. The petitioner allegedly fell ill on or about 25th January, 1979, and has averred that, in that period including the period of recovery from his illness, he could not attend classes on the advice of the Doctors, Later, he was regular in his attendance at the classes conducted by the College. He paid Rs. 50/- as Examination fee for II Year B.A. to be conducted by the University in the month of May, 1979 as directed by the Principal of the College. However, the petitioner has further stated that at the time of receiving the Examination fee, he was not informed that he would suffer from shortage of attendance to make him ineligible for taking the Examination. He has further stated that he even took the arrears of fee of Rs. 127/- hoping to get the admission ticket. But he was informed by the College authorities namely, 2nd respondent, of the shortage of attendance and the College refused to accept the tutition fee and did not also issue admission, ticket for the Examination. The petitioner has also stated that in the case of other students, shortage of attendance was condoned and such students were allowed to take the Examination. In these circumstances, being aggrieved by the refusal of admission ticket by the 2nd respondent, he has approached this Court for relief under Art. 226(1) (b) and (c) of the Constitution. The 1st respondent is the Registrar of the University of Bangalore, who is also represented by Counsel. The 2nd respondent is the Principal of the College and has also entered appearance and filed his statement of objections. In the said statement of objections, it is averred that the petitioner had never intimated about his illness to the College. The 2nd respondent has only admitted receiving the Examination fee and has denied all other allegations of the petitioner. The 2nd respondent has further stated in the statement of objections that the deficiency in the attendance in each of the classes was being pointed out by the teachers almost every term with a request to the students to make up the shortage by more regular and proper attendance in future. It was further stated that the Principal had power to recommend for condonation to, the University only upto 40 per cent of the attendance shortage and not otherwise. It was further stated that the petitioner''s attendance in the College for II year was only 33 per cent of the prescribed number of 365 periods for the relevant academic year, the petitioner having attended 123 periods.

The petitioner in the second of the petitions is also a student of the same College. But, he is a Science student with Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics, as his subjects. His averments are more or less similar. He has asserted that he was regular in his attendance, but he has been marked absent incorrectly by the teachers who took the classes. He was also refused admission ticket for the II year B.Sc., Examination for the academic year 1978-79. Aggrieved by the refusal of the admission ticket on ground of shortage of attendance, he has approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution for relief.

The 1st respondent is the Registrar of the University of Bangalore and the 2nd respondent is the Principal of the aforementioned College.

The 2nd respondent has filed the statement of objections pointing out that the petitioner has incorrectly submitted that the registers were not properly marked by the respective teachers. It has been stated that this petitioner has only 6 per cent attendance as against the condonable limit of 60 per cent.

The questions of fact and the questions of law raised in these two petitions are common, and they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.

The petitioners have not placed any material nor have their Counsel addressed arguments before this Court to disbelieve the assertion made on behalf of the 2nd respondent common to both the petitions. Nor is it possible for this Court to believe as alleged by the 2nd of the petitioners that the concerned Lecturers were not marking the attendance registers properly.

The University being the final authority in the matter of condoning the shortage of attendance, unless, there was an application by the student who suffered from such shortage, forwarded through the Principal to the University, question of condoning that shortage and permitting suchstudent to take the Examination does not arise at all In the instant cases, the petitioners have not averred that they made any application for condonation of then shortage of attendance. If that be the position, it is difficult for this Court to understand how the petitioners can claim to be aggrieved by the refusal of admission ticket on the ground of shortage of attendance which was not asked to be condoned and nor so condoned.

In this view of the matter, it is unnecessary to go into the question as to whether the University has power to condone the shortage of attendance below 60 per cent.

For the reasons stated above these petitions are liable to be rejected without issuing a rule.

In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.