Vikash Dubey and Others vs V.C. , Gautam Budh Technical University and Others

The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 31st March 2011 passed by the learned single Judge whereby the writ petition preferred by the present Appellants who are 7 in numbers seeking a direction to declare the result of V Semester examination held in January 2010 and also to permit the Appellants to attend the 4th year classes of session 2010-2011 and also to quash the letter dated 04.10.2010 issued by the Controller of Examination, Gautam Budh Technical University, Lucknow has been dismissed.

We have heard Sri Dharmendra Singh, learned Counsel for the Appellants, Sri Neeraj Tripathi, learned Counsel representing Respondents No. 1 and 2, Sri J.P. Rai, learned Counsel representing Respondent No. 3 and Sri K.M Garg, learned Counsel who represents Respondent No. 4 and have perused the impugned judgment and order dated 3rd March 2011 giving rise to the present appeal, the grounds taken in the memo of appeal and the documents filed along with it as also the supplementary affidavit filed today.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that all the Appellants were permitted by the College to appear in the examination of Vth and VIth semester held in May 2010. However, the results of the examination Vth semester was not declared whereupon they approached the authorities for declaration of the result. The University authorities had informed that as the attendance was less than 60% in the academic session, the results for the Vth semester can not be declared.

Sri Singh, learned Counsel submitted that as the College had permitted the students to appear in the Vth semester and VIth semester examination without informing or giving notice that the attendance is short, they can not withheld the result. The submission is wholly misconceived.

The attendance is to be counted semester wise and if for any reason the College authorities had permitted them to appear in a particular semester examination ignoring or violating the statutory provisions of the ordinances framed by the University which require a minimum percentage of attendance to be fulfilled, the University authorities can not be held to be bound by the decision taken by the College authorities. From a perusal of the memo of appeal at page 131, we find that none of the Appellants have attended even 50% of the classes and there is no provision in the Ordinance to condone the shortage of attendance if it is below 60%.

That being the position, we are of the considered opinion that the Appellants themselves are liable to be blamed as they had not attended the classes regularly and the attendance has fallen short of the requisite percentage and the learned single Judge had rightly dismissed the writ petition. The order of the learned single Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity.

The appeal fails and is dismissed with the aforesaid observations.

If for any reason, the College authorities had permitted the Appellants to appear in the Vth and VIth semester examination, in that event, the Appellants, if so advised, may claim compensation for the loss if any suffered by them in appropriate Court of law.