Ramesh Kumar and Others vs Jai Narain Vyas University and Others

Sangeet Lodha, J.�By way of this writ petition, the petitioners are seeking directions to the respondents to allow them to appear in B.Ed. Examination, 2013.

The case of the petitioners is that they qualified Pre Teachers Entrance Test, 2012 and were admitted to B.Ed. course in Chopasni Teachers Training College, Jodhpur, which is affiliated to Jai Narayan Vyas University. It is stated that the petitioners started their regular studies of B.Ed. course in the college. It is submitted that on 6.12.12, the petitioners filled the online examination form for B.Ed. Examination, 2013 and deposited the requisite fees on 11.12.12. The examinations were scheduled to commence w.e.f. 22.7.13, however, when the petitioners logged on to the website of the respondent-University to download their admission cards, their admission cards were not available online. On petitioners approaching the respondent University as well as college authorities, they were informed that they are debarred from appearing in the examination on account of shortage of attendance as well as for not participating in the academic activities. Hence, this petition.

On 22.7.13, while issuing notices to the respondents, an interim order was passed by this court in favour of the petitioners in the following terms:

"In the meanwhile and until further orders, the respondent Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur, Controller of Examination/Coordinator Exams 2013-14, Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur and the Center Superintendent, Shri Nakoda Parshvanath Jain Mahavidhyalaya, Sector B, Saraswati Nagar, Near St. Anne''s School, Basni, Jodhpur are directed to permit the petitioner to participate in B.Ed. Examination 2013. The participation of the petitioner in the examination aforesaid shall be provisional and subject to final decision of this petition for writ. The respondents are directed not to declare result of the petitioner relating to the examination concerned without specific permission of this Court."

A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2 taking the specific stand that the petitioners were not regular in their studies and they did not attend the classes regularly, nor did they remain present in the test conducted by the answering respondents. It is submitted that the petitioners have not deposited the practical submissions as claimed and no commitment as stated was made by the respondents for conducting the examinations for the petitioners separately. It is submitted that the petitioners have not submitted/participated in three sessionals, which comprises of three unit tests, out of which appearance in two unit test is compulsory and third unit test is optional. It is submitted that after the final examination, the best two unit tests are taken into consideration if the student appears in all three unit tests. It is submitted that as per the notification issued by the respondent-University, all the students pursuing various courses of regular studies are required to fulfill the 75% attendance in each subject before they are permitted to appear in the examination. The details of the petitioners'' attendance during the period from August, 2012 to April, 2013 have been set out in para No. 4 of the writ petition, according to which the petitioner No. 1 has attended two classes each in the month of August, 2012 and September, 2012 and thereafter, did not attend any class and the petitioner No. 2 has attended two classes in the month of August, 2012, four classes in September, 2012 and five classes each in the month of October, 2012 to May, 2013. It is submitted that since none of the petitioners fulfills 75% attendance requirement, they have rightly been debarred from appearing in the examination.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have undergone regular studies, however, they were never informed about the shortage of attendance whereas, as per Rule 6.1 and 6.2 of the Rules governing the attendance, it is necessary to notify to the student concerned three times in the year about the shortage of attendance. Learned counsel submitted that unless the notice is given to the students, they cannot be debarred from taking University examination on the ground of shortage of attendance. On being asked by the court regarding non appearance in the sessional examinations, learned counsel submitted that the petitioners were ready to appear in the sessional examinations but they were not allowed to appear. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, the respondent University is acting in arbitrary manner, in this regard, drawing the attention of this court to the mark sheet of the petitioner-Ramesh Kumar of B.Ed. Examination, 2013 wherein he had appeared pursuant to the interim order passed by this court, learned counsel submitted that in paper IV, the petitioner No. 1 has been shown absent whereas, he had appeared in the examination and secured 44 marks in the said paper as per the information supplied by the respondent University on application being made by the petitioner under Right to Information Act, 2005. Learned counsel submitted that on account of the lapses on the part of the respondents, the petitioners cannot be made to suffer.

On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 reiterating the stand taken in the reply to the writ petition, submitted that the petitioners have never attended the classes regularly and on account of shortage of attendance and non appearance in the Sessional Examinations, they were rightly been debarred from appearing in the University examinations. Learned counsel submitted that the requirement of the attendance to the extent of 75% is known to the every student pursuing the B.Ed. course, that apart, the petitioners were thrice warned about the shortage of attendance, despite that they did not attend the classes regularly. Learned counsel submitted that admittedly, the petitioners have appeared only in one unit test whereas appearance in two unit test is mandatory. Accordingly, it is submitted that the petitioners are not entitled for any indulgence by this court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent University submitted that the B.Ed. course is a course of regular study and training and therefore, the student is under an obligation to attend the classes regularly and also require to appear in the periodical Sessional Examinations as provided for. Learned counsel submitted that looking to the poor attendance of the petitioners, the question of permitting them to appear in the University examinations does not arise. Regarding petitioner No. 1 being shown absent in the fourth paper examination, wherein he appeared pursuant to the directions of this court, learned counsel submitted that it appears to be an inadvertent error but, in any case, it has no bearing whatsoever so far as question of the petitioner''s entitlement to appear in the University examination is concerned.

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

It is to be noticed that it is a categorical stand taken by the respondents in the reply to the writ petition that the petitioner No. 1 had attended two classes each in the month of August, 2012 and September, 2012 and did not attend any class thereafter and similarly, the petitioner No. 2 has attended two classes in the month of August, 2012, four classes in September, 2012 and five classes each in the month of October, 2012 to May, 2013. The averments made by the respondents in the reply filed as aforesaid, have not been controverter by the petitioners by filing any counter thereto. Thus, it is to be noticed that petitioners'' attendance in the classes, who are pursuing B.Ed. course, which is a course of regular studies and training governed by the norms laid down by National Council for Teachers Education, is just negligible whereas, the requirement is that the student should attend minimum 75% of the classes in each subject. The respondents have taken a categorical stand that the petitioners were warned thrice regarding the shortage of attendance but assuming that to be not correct, it cannot be disputed that the petitioners pursuing the studies of B.Ed. course were well aware about the requirement of the attendance and therefore, they cannot be permitted to contend that the shortage of attendance was not notified as provided for under Rule 6.1 and 6.2 of the Rules governing the attendance, moreso, when the attendance of the petitioner is just negligible. Further, it is not disputed before this court that as per the norms laid down, a student is required to appear at least in two unit test out of three and admittedly, the petitioners have appeared only in one unit test. In this view of the matter, viewed from any angle, the petitioners were not entitled to be permitted to appear in the University examination. Thus, the action of the respondents in debarring the petitioners from appearing in the examination cannot be faulted with.

In the result, the writ petition fails, it is hereby dismissed. The interim order dated 22.7.13 passed by this court is vacated. The B.Ed. Examination, 2013, wherein the petitioners have appeared pursuant to the interim order passed by this court shall stand cancelled. No order as to costs.