The petitioners are students of the second respondent college doing B.E., (Electronics & Instrumentation) and E.E.E. (Electrical and Electronics) Courses respectively. They have successfully completed the sixth semester. For the seventh semester, they were not permitted by the second respondent to go for the examination, since they had lack of attendance. Since they did not complete the seventh semester, there were not given permission to attend the classes for the eighth semester. Therefore, the petitioners have come forward with these Writ Petitions seeking for a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the second respondent to permit the petitioners to attend the eighth semester classes and consequently to direct the respondents to allow the petitioners to take the 7th semester examination scheduled to be held during February 2008 in B.E (Electronics & Instrumentation) and E.E.E. (Electrical and Electronics) Courses respectively at the second respondent college.
2. The second respondent has filed a counter, wherein he has stated that a candidate should have minimum attendance of 60% in each subject and over all attendance of 75% in a semester, as per the Rules and Regulations of the second respondent college, which is an autonomous college. Since the petitioners did not have the attendance, as required under the Rules and Regulations, they were not allowed to go for the seventh semester.
3. Admittedly, the second respondent college is an autonomous college, which has got power to regulate its own standards in the matter of attendance. As per clause (5) of the Rules and Regulations of the College, the following is the attendance requirements to be satisfied by a student during a particular semester, which reads as follows:-
"REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPLETION OF A SEMESTER:
A candidate who has fulfilled the following conditions shall be deemed to have satisfied the requirements for completion of a semester: a. he/she has earned not less than 60% of attendance in each course in that semester and not less than 75% of attendance on an average in all the courses in that semester put together, and b. his/her progress has been satisfactory, and c.his/her conduct has been satisfactory.
5.2: Students who have earned less than 60% attendance in any individual course of the semester are not deemed to have completed the semester. Students who have earned less than 65% attendance to an average in all the courses of that semester are not deemed to have completed the semester. 5.3: However, a candidate who could secure 60% attendance (without considering any leave) in any individual course and an average attendance between 65% and 74% (without considering any leave) in all the courses in the current semester due to medical reasons (hospitalization/ accident/specific illness) or due to participation in the College/University/State/ National/International level Sports events with prior permission from the Principal/competent authority shall be given exemption from the prescribed attendance requirement and he/she shall be permitted to appear for the current semester examinations. 5.4: Attendance for Medical Leave & On Duty Leave (ODL) for co-curricular and extra curricular activities all put together shall be granted up to 10% on the prescribed minimum average attendance (75%) provided Medical Certificate or certificate of participation in co-curricular/ extra-curricular activities from the competent authority had been submitted within THREE working days from the date of rejoining the college after the particular period of leave on medical ground or extra-curricular activities or both.
5.4.1 The following activities shall be considered for the award of attendance (ODL):
Sports and Games: TIES, Inter collegiate, Inter Zonal, Inter University, State level, National level and Open Tournaments.
NCC: Camps and expeditions NSS Camps YRC activities Cultural Programs Seminar/Symposia: Paper presentation/Quiz Leadership course organized by other organizations & Alumni Association activities Training Programs Association Activities Personal damages incurred during the extra-curricular activities Projects in Industries/Organizations.
Placement activities The students those who are uniformly good in curriculum progress ONLY be considered for the grant of attendance (ODL) under co-curricular/ extra- curricular activities by the competent authorities. 5.5 Percentage of attendance for the leave period (ML or On Duty Leave or Both) for the purpose of calculation of eligibility will be worked out based on the actual number of working days during the period of leave availed by the student and the actual total number of working days in that semester. 5.6 The ODL requisition letter shall be forwarded to the Principal through the HOD of the student concerned by the staff in charge of the respective activities before/after completion of the every activities.
5.7 The ODL sanctioned letters shall be submitted to the Department office. The Staff in charge of the department office will check the eligibility as per the clause 5.4 & 5.5 for the award of attendances at the end of semester and the same may be submitted to the HOD for approval.
5.7 Those students who are not deemed to have completed the semester with reference to the conditions specified above shall undergo the semester again in all the courses in the respective semester of next academic year".
4. Admittedly, the petitioners have not satisfied the requirement of attendance as found in regulation 5(7), as extracted above. Thus, the college was right in refusing permission to the petitioners to go for the seventh semester examination.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners may be permitted to attend the eighth semester classes, and thereafter, they may be permitted to attend the college for completing the seventh semester to satisfy the attendance requirement for the seventh semester.
6. But, in my considered opinion, it is not at all possible for the petitioners to do so, the reason being that under clause 5.7 of the Rules and Regulations, as extracted above, those students, who are not deemed to have completed a particular semester with reference to the conditions specified above shall undergo the semester again in all the courses in the respective semester of next academic year. Here, since the petitioners have lack of attendance for the seventh semester, they have to undergo the same semester in the very next academic year as provided in Regulation 5.7 and they cannot postpone the same by one more year. When the regulation is so clear, the prayer of the petitioners that the petitioners may be allowed to attend the eighth semester first and they may be permitted to redo the seventh semester after the completion of the eight semester cannot be countenanced at all.
7. At this juncture, it is necessary to analyze the law on the subject. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar V. H.P.University reported in AIR 1973 SC 221, while considering the case of a student, who had lack of attendance, has held as follows.
"5. Considering that this case concerns the career of a young student we tried to look at the matter with all possible sympathy and consideration, but we do not see how we can direct or compel an authority to do something which is beyond its legal competence to do. Since the principal is the only authority who can condone and since it was beyond his competence to condone the shortage in question, we do not see how we can intervene in favour of the petitioner even if the petitioner had succeeded in making out a case for condonation. In our opinion, the appeal must fail on this short point. Much as we regret the unfortunate fact that the petitioner is going to lose almost two precious years of his academic life we are in law bound to confirm the decision of the High Court, and dismiss the petitioner's appeal. We, therefore, do so. In the circumstances of this case, however, we are making no order as to costs".
8. When a similar question arose before the Karnataka High Court in B.M.Satish v. Bangalore University reported in AIR 1994 KARNATAKA 379, the Karnataka High Court in paragraph 11 has held as follows:- "Attendance is necessary to achieve academic discipline and scholastic excellence. In fact it is the foundation for any course of study. Recognizing its importance, the Regulations provide for a minimum attendance and also provide for exercise of discretion by the Vice-Chancellor, to condone a further shortage in given circumstances. Beyond that limit, the Vice-Chancellor himself has no power to condone the shortage. In such a case it is neither advisable nor permissible for Courts to exercise their extraordinary jurisdiction to condone shortages beyond permissible limits there by setting at naught academic control and discipline and interfering in a matter which is purely within the regulatory province of colleges and the Universities. As petitioners have admittedly not obtained the minimum percentage of attendance, this Court will neither condone the shortage nor permit the petitioners to participate in the examinations. Hence the second point is also answered in the negative. Consequently all these petitions are rejected".
9. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court had an occasion to deal with a similar question in Parvez Ahmad V. Aligarh Muslim University reported in AIR 1988 ALLAHABAD 18 wherein, it has been held as follows:- "26. We desired the petitioners' counsel to tell us any provision of law under which the Vice Chancellor would be asked to reconsider the question of shortage in attendance of the petitioners, but counsel was unable to do so.
27. In America, attendance of classes depends on the will and desire of the students and not one on the basis of shortage in attendance is detained from appearing in the examination. That may be so, but what is prevalent in America does not help us in interpreting the Ordinance with which we are concerned in the present case. The interpretation would mean what we have found above.
28. Sri Dilip Gupta, learned counsel for the University has argued that it is a rule of prudence that Courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of academic bodies and has urged that the present case deserves no interference in exercise of jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution. In support of his argument, the learned counsel has relied on a decision in Dr. J.P. Kulshreshta V. Chancellor of Allahabad University, AIR 1980 SC 2141 and University of Mysore v. H.H. Annaiah Gowda, AIR 1965 SC 491. We find substance in his submission".
10. A close analysis of the above said Judgments would go to show that the law has been well settled on this aspect that the Court cannot interfere in the matter of the attendance. Attendance is necessary to achieve academic discipline and scholastic excellence. In fact, it is the foundation for any course of study. This Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction to direct or compel the authorities to do something, which is beyond its legal competence to do.
11. In view of the above position, except expressing sympathy for the petitioners, I cannot do anything in favour of the petitioners. These Writ Petitions fail and the same are dismissed. No costs. Consequentially, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed.
ba/NB To
1.The Director of Technical Education, Chennai.
2.The Principal, Thiyagarajar College of Engineering.
Madurai - 15.