The petitioner, a student of M.Tech in the Harcourt Butler Technology Institute, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Institute'), has filed this petition for a direction upon the respondent-Institute to permit the petitioner to appear at the second semester examination and take admission in the third semester.
It is stated that while the petitioner was studying in the second semester, he fell ill from 14th June, 2009 to 29th July, 2009 and because of shortage of attendance, the petitioner was not permitted to appear at the second semester examinations which commenced from 30th July, 2009. The father of the petitioner, therefore, submitted a representation before the Director of the Institute along with a medical certificate that the absence of the petitioner was not deliberate but due to circumstances beyond his control, but still the petitioner was not permitted to appear at the second semester examination.
A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent-Institute. It has been stated that since the attendance of the petitioner was less than even 60% in the second semester, the Dean of the Academic Affairs was informed but he did not grant permission to the petitioner to appear at the second semester examination because of shortage of attendance. The petitioner and five other students, whose attendance were also less then 60% were, therefore, not permitted to appear at the second semester examination. It has also been stated that the examinations of the second semester are already over and the petitioner should have sought re-admission in the second semester, attended the classes and then appeared at the second semester examination and only when he clears the second semester examination, that he can be granted admission to the third semester examination.
The relevant attendance Rules have also been quoted and the same are as follows:-
"6. Attendance- Students are expected to attend 100% classes. Normally student should be allowed to appear in a semester examination unless he/she has put in less than 75% attendance in all the theory/practical subjects in that 2 semester. Attendance for dissertation work in third semester shall be verified by the supervisor/guide. However, an additional shortage by an amount not exceeding 15% of the total number of lectures delivered or practical work done in each subject may be condoned for special reasons as given below.
(a) A shortage upto 5% of the total number of lectures delivered or practical work done in each subject may be condoned by the Head of Department.
(b) A further shortage upto 10% may be condoned by the Director/Principal of the Institute/College or the Dean of Faculty of the University on the specific recommendation of the concerned Head of the Department."
In Annexure-2 to the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has given the details of the total number of classes held in each subject and the classes attended by the petitioner in the second semester during the months of April, May, June and July, 2009. This chart has been supplied to the petitioner by the University. It shows that in the month of April, 2009, Sri P.N. Tiwari, (Guest Faculty) taught two subjects. In the first subject, the petitioner attended 2/10 classes in April, 09/17 Classes in May, 2/24 Classes in June and 11/18 Classes in July, 2009, while in the second subject, the petitioner attended 2/4 Classes in April, 4/8 Classes in May, 4/16 Classes in June and 0/14 Classes in July, 2009. In the classes taken by Professor R.P. Singh, the petitioner attended 2/10 Classes in April, 6/22 Classes in May, 4/8 Classes in June and 6/17 Classes in July, 2009. In the Classes taken by Professor V.K. Tyagi, the petitioner attended 0/01 Classes in April, 4/20 Classes in May, 2/17 Classes in June and 9/14 Classes in July, 2009.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had fallen ill and, therefore, he was entitled for condonation of the attendance for that period. He has also submitted that the teachers have not correctly shown the attendance in the attendance register. According to him, the petitioner had attended more than 60% classes in the second semester and, therefore, he was entitled to appear at the second semester examination.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University submitted that under the relevant Rule-6, a candidate cannot be permitted to appear at the semester examination unless he has to his credit at least 75% attendance, but attendance to the maximum extent of 15% below 75% can be condoned for the two reasons mentioned in the Rule. He, therefore, submits that under any circumstances, a candidate having less than 60% attendance cannot be permitted to appear at the examination and since in the instant case, the 3 petitioner had less than 60% attendance in the second semester, he was rightly not permitted to appear at the second semester examination.
I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties.
A perusal of the Attendance Rule-6 clearly shows that though the students are normally expected to attend 100% classes, but a student must have at least 75% attendance in all the theory/practical subjects in a semester to be able to appear at the examination. However, attendance to the maximum extent 15% attendance below 75% can still be condoned for the two reasons mentioned in Rule 6 by the authorities namely 5% by the Head of Department and 10% attendance by the Director of the Institute/College on specific recommendation of the concerned Head of the Department. Thus, under no circumstances, a student with less than 60% attendance can be permitted to appear at the examination.
From a perusal of the attendance details, which the petitioner has filed along with the rejoinder affidavit, it is seen that out of total 220 classes, the petitioner attended only 67 classes. Thus, the attendance of the petitioner in the second semester is about 30% . Even if the ground of illness of the petitioner from 14th June, 2009 to 29th July, 2009 is taken to be correct, then too the petitioner will be entitled for condonation of maximum 15% attendance from the normal 75% requirement but in the present case, the attendance of the petitioner is only about 30%. He could not have, therefore, been permitted to appear at the Second semester examination. There is no good reason not to believe the attendance details given by the University to the petitioner, particularly when no allegations of malafide have been made against any teacher or officer of the University.
The examinations were held sometimes in July, 2009. The petitioner, therefore, should have sought re-admission in the second semester and only after he had attended the classes and had the requisite percentage of attendance that he could have been permitted to appear at the second semester examination but it transpires that the petitioner did not take re-admission in the second semester and for this the petitioner alone has to blame himself.
The requirement of having requisite percentage of attendance for appearing at the examination has been emphasized by Courts time and again. In Parvez Ahmad & Ors., Vs. Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh & Ors., 1987 UPLBEC 517 a Division Bench of this Court examined the provisions of 4 the Attendance Regulations of the Aligarh Muslim University which provided that the attendance should 75% but the Condonation Committee could condone the shortage of attendance in cases where attendance was upto 65%. The Court refused to grant relief to the students whose attendance was less than 65%. This decision of the Division Bench of the High Court was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2820 of 1987 (Syed Nusrat Z. Ahmed & Ors., Vs. Aligarh Muslim University & Ors.,).
In Regional Engineering College, Hamirpur & Anr. Vs. Ashutosh Pandey, JT 2000 (10) 216 the Supreme Court examined the provisions of the attendance regulations of the University which provided that though the requirement of attendance was 75%, but the Principal could condone further shortage upto 10% only if the candidate satisfied the conditions mentioned therein. The Supreme Court held that in view of the Regulations, under no circumstances the Principal could condone shortage of 11% attendance below the normal requirement of 75% since the Principal had the power to condone only upto 10%. The relevant observations are as follows:-
"A perusal of the Regulation shows that a candidate should first have 75% of minimum attendance in that course under Regulation 4.1. Regulation 4.2 mentions the circumstances under which further exemption can be granted by the Principal. The Principal can give further credit upto an extent of 10% of the total classes held in each course during the period of a student's participation in the programmes/competitions mentioned in Regulation 4.2. The Principal can exempt upto 10% of the total classes only in contingencies as mentioned in Regulation 4.2. Thus, 10% is the maximum in addition to 25%.
In addition, Regulation 4.3 is specific that the condonation on account of reasons listed under (4.2) shall not exceed 10% of the total lectures delivered during the semester It also states that a candidate will have to apply to the concerned Head of Department on prescribed proforma along with the reasons and documents in proof of his absence. Condonation can be granted by the concerned Head of Department with the prior approval of the Principal. Thus, 10% in excess of 25% alone, is the maximum that can be condoned.
In the present case, the respondent did not make any application in the prescribed pro forma. Therefore, it is not possible to say whether his case comes within the contingencies mentioned in Regulation 4.2. It is no doubt stated that the respondent had gone to Delhi to appear in the examination/interview, but it is not clear whether that was an examination/interview held by a Government Organization/Public Limited Company. In any event, admittedly after deducting admissible 25% exemption, 5 further absence of the respondent comes to 11% which is more than the permissible discretionary percentage granted to the Principal. Therefore, the Principal was right in saying he had no power to condone the absence in excess of 10% in addition to 25%.
We are, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court fell into an error in permitting condonation of absence beyond 10% in addition to 25%. We, therefore, set aside the judgment of the High Court and the directions given therein." (emphasis supplied) In the present case, the attendance of the petitioner is about 30% only.
The maximum percentage of attendance which can be condoned from the normal requirement of 75% is 15%. In other words, there is no scope to condone shortage in attendance if the attendance is less than 60%. It will, therefore, not be possible for this Court to condone the shortage of attendance. No relief can, therefore, be granted to the petitioner.
The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Date: 2.4.2010 NSC