ORDER
P.K. Palli, J.
1. The petitioner is a second year student of T.D.C. B.Sc. Course and studying in Shri Guru Nanak Khalsa College, Sriganganagar (respondent No. 1).
2. The petitioner has impugned in this petition notice dated 18th March, 1994 (Annex. 4) issued by respondent No. 1 wherein it is said that the petitioner is short of lectures and the matter has been sent to the University (respondent No. 2) and in case the Univerity refuses him to take examination, he shall not be allowed to sit in the said esaminaion. In the petition, the petitioner has averred that he has been regularly attending the classes up to 12th Feb. 1994, whereafter College was closed down for preparatory purposes. He has already appeared in the practical examination on 25th Feb. 1994 and the time table for the Second Year Science (Medical Group) Examination, 1994 stands published and the examination is going to start on 22nd April and it is now that the petitioner learns from the notice displayed on the notice board that he is short of attendance and may be deprived to appear in the examination subject however to the decision of the respondent No. 2, i.e., the University. It is further stated that during August and Sept. the students were on srike and petitioner for 20 days in the month of Decemberwas ill and had submitted medical certificate and has already deposited his yearly fees and other funds and now at the last moment when the main examination was around the corner, for no goods reasons, shortage of attendance has been pasted on the notice board and the petitioner was never provided any prior notice regarding shortage of attendance. The petitioner further avers that two other
students similarly circumstanced are being allowed to take the examination and that the petitioner was being discriminated against.
3. At the motion stage this Court vide order dated 19th April, 1994 passed on the interim application permitted the petitioner to take examination till 25th April, 1994 for which date show cause notice was ordered to be issued. On 25th April, 1994 case was adjourned for 2nd May, 1994 as jointly prayed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and stay was ordered to continue in force. On 2nd May, 1994 reply was filed and it was stated that the petitioner has not even attended 50% of the lectures. The learned counsel appearing for him sought time to verify the fact and the case was adjourned to 10th May, 1994 and the stay order dated 19th April, 1994 was extended up to that day. Thereafter there is no order extending the stay.
4. The matter has come up for arguments on admission since the reply already stands filed. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the parties have made an agreed statement that the matter be disposed of finally at the admission stage itself and with their consent I propose to decide this matter finally.
5. In the return placed on record from the side of the respondent No. 1 it is stated that the petitioner has never been regular in his attendance and he was informed vide letter dated 14th December, 1993sent under U.P.C. at his home address, though it was not obligatory to inform each and every student to keep the attendance since under the Rules they are expected to maintain the attendance at a particular level. The admission forms filled in and signed by the students and their guardians, contained the term that the student will put up attendance up to 66%. Inspite of the petitioner having been specifically informed that he was shortage in attendance, be never cared and was never serious about the matter and thus has been rightly debarred and deprived from appearing in the examination. Annexure 4 has been issued in consonance with the Rules and Ordinances of the University since no admission card was issued by respondent No. 2. It is further said that there was no such strike by the students as alleged by the petitioner. The fact of his illness has also been denied with the averment that no medical certificate as alleged was ever submitted. The attendance slip up to !2th Feb. 1994 showing lectures delivered and the lectures attended in theory as well as practical, has been placed with the return as Annx. R. 1/2, where the petitioner attended 30 lectures against 92 delivered in theory and 14 against 25 delivered in practical in Chemistry. He attended 27 lectures against 79 delivered in theory and 16 out of 26 in practical in Zoology and in Botany he attended 22 lectures against 67 delivered in theory and 10 out of 20 delivered in practical. Thus the petitioner’s attendance was far less than even 50% whereas he was required to maintain the level up to 66% as per Annx. R. 1/4. The appearance in the practical examination does not entitle the petitioner nor create any vested right in him to appear in the final examination. The intimation appears to have been pasted on the notice hoard on 16th Sept. 1993 for the notice of all students that they were advised to go through the prospectus of the College, a copy of which has been placed as Annx. R. 1/3 and again vide notice dated 10th Dec. 1993 to 15th Dec. 1993 attendance record of the students was again affixed on the notice board a copy of which has been placed as Annex. R. 1/4. On 14th Dec. 1993 information was sent to the guardians/fathers of the students whose attendance was short. A letter was written to the petitioner’s father: guardian at his home address in the self addressed envelop submitted by the petitioner under U.P.C., which has been placed as Annx. R. 1/5.
6. It was thus the responsibility of the petitioner himself to ensure that his attendance does not fall short and is up to the required level. Regarding the instances of two other students similarly circumstanced, it has been stated that their cases were entirely different. One of them had been admitted had come from a different institution and certificate of attendance from that College was submitted and taken into consideration and it was found that there was no shortage of attendance. Regarding other instance the student was placed in supplementary in B.Sc. Part I Examination, 1993 and was given provisional admission in B.Sc. Part II and simultaneously he applied for revaluation. He did not get through the supplementary and thus his name was struck off from B.Sc. Part II. On revaluation he was declared successful and was admitted on 2nd February, 1994 in B.Sc. Part II and naturally his atendance was to be taken into consideration from the date of such admission. Therefore, no special treatment has been given to any one as projected by the petitioner.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has argued that various opportunities and notices were granted to the petitioner to improve the attendance but he never cared and no vested right of the petitioner has been violated. The petition is misconceived and be dismissed.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already taken up the examination up to 10th May, 1994 under orders of this Court and it will cause injustice to him to non suit him at this stage and that the respondents be ordered to declare the result of the petitioner. This submission is replied by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the petitioner has not taken up the entire examination and has appeared only in those papers the examination of which had been held up to 10th May and that certain subjects have still been left over.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has pressed into service Tara Chand Gupta v. University of Ajmer (1991) 2 Raj LR 715. After having gone through this judgment I am of the opinion that the ratio is not even remotely attracted to the present case. In that case the petitioner therein was allowed by the University to appear in the Third Year Examination and also in due papers of Second Year T.D.C. and later the candidature was cancelled and result was withheld on the ground that as per Ordinance of the University he was not eligible to appear in Third Year without passing Second Year and that he ought to have appeared in all papers of Second Year. It was in these circumstances this court held that the University should have checked thoroughly before issuing admission card and once he has been allowed to appear in the examination it was not open to the University to say that he was not eligible in view of the Ordinance of the University.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has brought to my notice two decisions of this Court, i.e., Dheeraj Joshi & Neeraj Joshi v. Board of Secondary Education (1988) 1 Raj LR 823, a Division Bench decision of this Court. This was a case of shortage of attendance and admission cards were not issued. The Board, however, allowed the petitioners to provisionally appear on the representation of their father and later a telegram was issued to the Centre Superintendent directing him not to allow the petitioners to appear in further examination and that the position had become clear and their attendance found was short of the minimum prescribed and in this situation it was held that the action of the Board was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable and no case was made out for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In similar set of circumstances, is the decision given by the Jaipur Bench of this Court reported in Hari Kishan Meena v. B.S.S.E., Ajmer (1991) 2 Raj LR 214. In this case the petitioners there-in the petition were allowed to appear provisionally under interim order passed by the Court. The petitioners had already appeared in the practical examination and result had already been published in the news-papers. The Board in its decision did not allow the petitioners to take examination due to short fall of attendance. It was held that the decision was in accordance with the regulation and could not be interfered with.
11. After having gone through the pleadings and the other relevant materials placed on record and after having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length it is evident that the petitioner is short in attendance. He does not even cross 50% whereas the required level is 66%. It is too late in the day to contend that the petitioner did not know that the shortage in attendance could lead in depriving him from appearing in the examination. Further the contentions that there was strike or he was medically unfit to attend have been denied by the respondents in the written statement. There is no question of taking any lenient view in the matter. Once this Court starts interfering in such a situation, the Rules Regulations and Ordinances issued by the educational institution in this respect would not only become irrelevant but redundant. The atmosphere in educational institutions due to strikes, relations between the teachers and the students is deteriorating and the carelessness with which students waste their time without caring for their own future and which strightway results in loss of studies and wasting of precious time and lot of money of their parents and putting every one to inconvenience, is not to be taken lightly. The moment leniency in such situation is shown, students would never care to attend their course regularly. I am also of the view that no right as such is created in the petitioner merely because he has been allowed to appear and take up the examination in some papers under orders of this Court. Discipline and regularity are the two pedestals on which stands a sound foundation of educational institutions. Cracks have already appeared and efforts should be made in the direction of cementing or repairing the same. I do not consider it to be a fit and proper case to take any lenient view.
12. In view of what has been stated above, the writ petition is dismissed.