JUDGMENT R.R. Yadav, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M. A, Khan and Sri Dilip Gupta representing respondents. Perused the averments made in the writ petition.
2. The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner for issuing a writ of mandamus commanding respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to permit the petitioner to appear in B. Tech. Final Year Examination of the year 2002, which has already started with effect from 4.4.2002. It is brought to my notice by the learned counsel representing respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Sri Dilip Gupta that the examination of three papers relating to B. Tech. Final Year Examination of year 2002, in which the petitioner intends to appear has already completed.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for both sides. 1 am of the view that Aligarh Muslim University. Aligarh in order to maintain its academic excellence has prescribed 75% attendance for regular students. In the instant case, indisputably the petitioner was a regular student, therefore, he can be eligible to appear in B. Tech. Final Year Examination of the year 2002 provided he has undergone regular course of study in the university or an institution maintained by it for the period specified in the Academic Ordinance of the University.
4. For ready reference, the relevant Ordinance XVII of the Aligarh Muslim University. Aligarh, is reproduced herein below.
Chapter XVII EXAMINATIONS [(Act 5 (3). 29 (f) 29 (g). 33 and Statute 5A (4) (1)]
1. Examinations of the university, other than the Doctorate examination, shall be open to the following categories of candidates :
(a) regular students, i.e.. candidates, who have undergone a regular course of study in the University or an institution maintained by the University for a period specified for that course of study ;
(b) private candidates, as defined in Clause 4 below ;
(c) ex-students as defined in Clause 5 below.
2. A candidate shall be deemed to have undergone a regular course of study for the period specified for the course to be eligible to appear at the examination if he has fulfilled requirements as given in the chart below :
Faculty Attendance Lectures Practical Tutorials/ Seminars Sessional requirement Arts 75% 75% 75% As per new Academic Ordinances Socal Sciences Science Commerce Engineering (B.Sc., B.E. and M.Sc.) 75% combined Diploma 75% Law 75% 75% Medicine
(i) All post graduate Diplomas 80% 8O%
(ii) M.B.B.S. (I.
II and combined and/or Final Professionals) 75% In Practical.
Demonstrations Clinics in eachsubjects,
(iii) Others course 75% 75% Theology (B.Tech.
and M.Tech.) 75%
5. From perusal of the aforesaid ordinance, it is crystal clear that Examination of the University, other than the Doctorate examination, shall be open to the categories of candidates enumerated therein provided a regular student has undergone a regular course of study in the university or an institution maintained by the university for a period specified for that course of study. Under the aforesaid ordinance, the petitioner Is required to complete 75% combined attendance to appear in B. Tech. Examination. Indisputably from perusal of paragraph 10 of the writ petition, it is evident that the petitioner has completed only 56% attendance as a regular student upto February, 2002.
6. 1 am of the view that the respondents have committed no error in debarring the petitioner to appear in B. Tech. Examination, 2002 due to shortage of attendance. It is pertinent to observe here that neither the petitioner has laid foundation challenging the vires of statutory academic ordinance of the university quoted hereinabove nor the learned counsel for petitioner raised any argument in this regard questioning the vires of the said statutory academic ordinance of the university. It is held that aforesaid statutory academic ordinance prescribing 75% combined attendance in lectures and practical for regular students to appear in the examination of engineering course of study is just, fair and reasonable to achieve the laudable object of academic excellence of Engineers, who happened to obtain degree of Engineering from Aligarh Muslim University. Aligarh. To my mind, to maintain efficiency in engineering course of study a combined attendance of 75% is essential. In case on hand, it is not disclosed what is percentage of attendance of the petitioner in lectures and what is percentage of his attendance in practical. 11 is to be imbibed by all of us that attending universities itself is integral part of education and a student enhances his knowledge by mixing and interacting with Lecturers, Readers, Professors and his fellow students. The prescribed attendance in statutory academic ordinance has tendency to increase the healthy competition of learning amongst students of the university taking their course of studies with all seriousness.
7. There is yet another reason to arrive at the aforesaid conclusion. In my considered opinion, the Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, is an autonomous corporate body and it is free to take statutory academic decision prescribing objective test of eligibility for regular students to appear in examinations. The decision taken by the university allowing some students to appear in the examination whereas debarring some one to appear in such examination is required to be founded on some objective test. In the academic ordinance, the university has laid down objective test for regular students to appear in the examination and according to objective test laid down in the academic ordinance of the university only those regular students, who have undergone prescribed regular course of study in the university or in an Institution maintained by the university are entitled to appear in the examination. The aforesaid statutory decision has been taken by the expert. Academicians of Aligarh Muslim University, who arc well versed in educational matters and have expertise, knowledge and experience in such matters. The ordinance made by the university laying down objective test of 75% combined attendance for regular students in engineering regular course of study does not require interference by this Court. The pragmatic decision taken by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 debarring the petitioner on the basis of statutory objective test of 75% combined attendance laid down in Chapter XVII of Ordinances on examination of engineering course of study to which category he belonged cannot be interfered with on the idealistic suggestion of learned counsel for petitioner taking lenient view to save the career of petitioner. It is held that where public interest is pitted against individual interest, this Court would prefer public interest in comparison to individual interest. In the present case, it goes without saying that after obtaining Engineering Degree from Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, the petitioner would engage himself in some employment, trade or calling affecting the lives of the public at large. To my mind, lives of public at large is dearest in comparison to individual career of the petitioner based on inefficient learning in engineering course of study due to shortage of attendance.
8. Bottom line argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that respondent No. 2 has permitted Firoj Anjum, who obtained 60% attendance. Manish Varshney who obtained 59% attendance and Mohd. Javed Ansari, who obtained 60% attendance upto February. 2002, whereas the petitioner, who obtained 56% attendance upto February, 2002, is not allowed to appear in the aforesaid examination.
9. Suffice it to say in this regard that the petitioner, who has undergone a regular course of study of only 56% is not comparable to the aforesaid regular students, who have obtained 60% or 59% attendance and after February, 2002, they continued to attend the classes. This Court has reason to believe that they have completed 75% combined attendance, therefore, allowed to appear in the examination by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and an argument contrary to it, as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is not acceptable to me and it is hereby repelled. After close examination of the material available on record. 1 have no hesitation to hold that the decision taken by respondents debarring the petitioner to appear in B. Tech. Final Year Examination of the year 2002 due to shortage of his combined attendance is within the scope of authority conferred upon them under statutory ordinance of examinations in various disciplines of learning in the university and it is also most reasonable for the reasons discussed hereinabove. 1 decline to issue a prerogative writ making the decision taken by respondents debarring the petitioner to appear in the B. Tech. Final Year Examination, 2002 due to shortage of his combined attendance to be ineffective.
10. It is frankly conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not made any allegation of mala fide against respondent Nos. 2 and 3. In absence of any allegation of mala fide against respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have practised discrimination with the petitioner does not arise. It is well to remember that there is presumption that an act done by an authority is bona fide unless contrary is proved. In the present case the petitioner fails to prove contrary.
11. For the reasons what have been discussed hereinabove no ground is made out for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
12. Consequently, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed limine.