The petitioner is aggrieved with the denial of condonation of attendance shortage for appearance in Bachelor of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry examinations, which the petitioner is undergoing under the respondent University. The petitioner was an unfortunate victim of an accident which led to very serious injuries as is indicated in Ext.P2 discharge summary of the petitioner. The petitioner due to the said accident could not attend the classes of the 2nd year between 15.08.2014 and 12.11.2014. The petitioner hence admittedly had attendance shortage, the condonation of which was sought before the University. The petitioner's application was also supported by the recommendation of the Dean of the College, in which the petitioner was studying, produced at Ext.P4. However, the application stood declined as per Ext.P5, which is assailed herein. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would WPC.No.32832/2014 : 2 :
refer to the recommendation of the Dean as also the marks, which the petitioner had obtained in the first year, indicate that the petitioner is a reasonably good student and was entitled to participate in the 2nd year examination, despite the attendance shortage. The learned counsel would pointedly referred to Ext.P6, by which another student had been granted such condonation, despite the shortage having exceeded the minimum condonable limit, under Clause 49, dealing with the removal of the difficulties of the academic regulations. The petitioner seeks a similar treatment and assails the rejection on the ground of discrimination also.
3. The University has filed a detailed counter affidavit, in which it is indicated that the minimum required percentage of attendance is 80 and the Vice-Chancellor has the power to condone the attendance shortage, subject, however, to examination of merits of each case. The allegation of discrimination is met with Ext.R1(b)-semester wise attendance report of the petitioner. The specific contention taken by the University is that a mere perusal of Ext.R1(b) would indicate that the petitioner had 70% attendance in one of the subjects and 50% in another. In five other subjects, the percentage was between 40 and 50 and for one subject it was below 30. The contention of the University WPC.No.32832/2014 : 3 :
is that, there could be no discrimination alleged, since the student who had been permitted as per Ext.P6, had only shortage of 5% to 7% from the requisite minimum, with 15% shortfall in only one subject. In the case of the petitioner the shortfall is between 20% in 50%. The learned Standing Counsel would contend that the details of attendance obtained by the petitioner would clearly indicate that, the petitioner’s absence was not purely for reason of the accident and even when he had attended the classes for certain of the subjects, the petitioner has absented himself from other subjects. There can be no discrimination found on the facts placed on record. The refusal of the Vice-Chancellor to condone the attendance shortage cannot also be faulted on any other ground. The petitioner would definitely be entitled to repeat the year, under the University.
The writ petition would stand dismissed with the above observation.
Sd/-
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge