IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR.SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B. WRIT APPEAL NO. 4641 OF 2016 (EDN-EX) BETWEEN MRS. JENNIFER A W/O EMMANUEL ISRAEL AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT # 10/5 6TH MAIN, ITC COLONY, COX TOWN JEEVANAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 180 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI POONACHA C M, ADVOCATE) AND 1. ESIC COLLEGE OF NURSING (UNDER MINISTRY OF LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA) # 70, APPAREDDY PALYA 7TH MAIN, INDRANAGAR BANGALORE-560 038 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL 2. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, KARNATAKA, 4TH "T" BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 041 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR 3. INDIAN NURSING COUNCIL COMBINED COUNCILS BUILDING KOTLA ROAD, TEMPLE LANE OPP. MATA SUNDRI COLLEGE NEAR I.T.O., NEW DELHI - 110 002 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT GEETHADEVI M P, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI N K RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
SRI SHIVARUDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R-3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.39211/2015 DATED 15/06/2016.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Order on I.A.No.I of 2016 After hearing Mr.C.M.Poonacha, learned advocate appearing in support of the application, Srimathi M.P.Geethadevi, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.1, Mr.N.K.Ramesh, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2, Mr.Shivarudra, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.3 and considering the averments contained in the affidavit annexed to the application for condonation of delay, we are satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the memorandum of writ appeal in time. Therefore, the delay in filing the writ appeal is condoned.
The application for condonation of delay stands allowed. We make no order as to costs.
Judgment in the writ appeal 2. By consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, the writ appeal is taken up for preliminary hearing.
3. By the order impugned, the prayer of the writ petitioner, who has been a B.Sc. Nursing student, for condonation of attendance in the classes, was not accepted.
4. It is submitted that the writ petitioner –appellant had a complicated pregnancy resulting in confinement in the home. Consequently, she could not attend the classes nor could she write the internal examinations.
5. Admittedly, the percentage of attendance of the writ petitioner –appellant is not enough to permit her to appear in the examination. It is true that the writ petitioner was pregnant and the pregnancy was complicated but, there is no provision under the law to condone the attendance of the pregnant ladies.
6. The Hon’ble Single Judge, in such a situation, while disposing of the writ petition, requested the authorities to formulate a policy for the lady students, who, on account of pregnancy, would be deprived of the benefit of appearing in the examinations due to their absence in the classes.
7. Although we have all sympathy for the lady, but the sympathy would be misplaced if we permit a student to appear in the examination when she could not secure the required percentage of attendance.
8. We do not find any merit in writ appeal.
9. Therefore, the writ appeal is dismissed.
10. In view of the dismissal of the writ appeal, I.A.No.II of 2016 does not survive for consideration and is, also, dismissed.
11. We make no order as to costs.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE bkv