BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14/06/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN Writ Petition (MD) No.9770 of 2008 and Writ Petition (MD) No.3344 of 2009 and M.P.(MD) Nos.3 and 4 of 2008 and 1 to 3 of 2009 J.Jebagiftson ... Petitioner in both petitions Vs. 1.The Secretary and Correspondent(Chairman)
Infant Jesus College of Engineering,
Kamaraj Nagar,
Tirunelveli – Thoothukudi National High Way,
Keelavallanadu,
Thoothukudi District.
2.The Principal,
Infant Jesus College of Engineering,
Kamaraj Nagar,
Tirunelveli – Thoothukudi National High Way,
Keelavallanadu,
Thoothukudi District.
3.The Director,
Infant Jesus College of Engineering,
Kamaraj Nagar,
Tirunelveli – Thoothukudi National High Way,
Keelavallanadu,
Thoothukudi District.
4.The Registrar,
Anna University,
Chennai – 600 025.
5.The Commissioner of Technical Education,
Department of Technical Education,
Chennai – 600 025. … Respondents 1 to 5
in both petitions
6.The Controller of Examination,
Anna University,
Chennai. … Respondent No.6 in
W.P.(MD)No.3344/09
Prayer in W.P.(MD) No.9770 of 2008
Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, to call for the entire records pertaining to the impugned letter dated
01.10.2008 issued by the 2nd respondent and consequently direct the respondents
to permit the petitioner to attend the theory examinations pertaining to VII
semester of B.E.(Mechanical) course which scheduled to be commenced on
07.11.2008 in the 2nd respondent’s college and further direct the respondents
No.1 to 3 to conduct the special practical examination for the petitioner
pertaining to VII semester of B.E. (Mechanical) course in their college.
Prayer in W.P.(MD) No.3344 of 2009
Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, to call for the entire records pertaining to the impugned letter sent
by the 6th respondent in memo No.4886/COE/C37/2008 dated 06.04.2009 and
consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to attend the
practical and theory examinations pertaining to VII semester of B.E.
(Mechanical) course which scheduled to be commenced on 20.04.2009 in the 2nd
respondent’s college.
!For petitioner … Mr.R.Anand
^For respondents … Mr.K.Srinivasan, Senior
Counsel for Mr.M.P.Senthil
for R1 to R3
Mr.R.Devaraj for
Mr.G.M.Mani Associates for R4
Mr.D.Muruganantham,
A.G.P. for R5 and R6
:COMMON ORDER
The petitioner passed S.S.L.C. Examinations in 2003. He joined Diploma in
Mechanical Engineering (D.M.E.) course at Jeyaraj Annapackiam Polytechnic at
Nazareth in 2003. He passed D.M.E. in April 2006.
2.Thereafter, he joined in the 1st respondent College in the second year
in B.E. (Mechanical Engineering) during 2006 – 2007. Since, he passed Diploma
in Mechanical Engineering, he was admitted in the 2nd year of B.E. course. He
passed 3rd and 4th semester examinations. During June 2007, he joined 5th
semester.
3.According to the petitioner, the students including the petitioner
objected the behaviour of one teaching staff viz., Mr.Livingston Jebakumar.
There were agitations against the said teacher for his conduct. While so, the
college intimated the father of the petitioner in their letter dated 10.11.2007
that the college was to issue Transfer Certificate to the petitioner and he
shall not continue his studies at the 1st respondent college. The following
reasons are given for issuing the Transfer Certificate:
i. The petitioner has not got signature in the observation and record note
book in time.
ii.The petitioner did not write and did not pass the series test and model
test.
iii.The petitioner was very rude and rough to the Faculty members.
iv. The petitioner instigated other students to boycott the classes.
4.Besides the petitioner, 6 other students were also issued similar
letter. The College has also sent another letter dated 06.12.2007 to the
parents of the 7 students, who were to issue Transfer Certificates, to meet the
Principal before 15.12.2007, otherwise, the students would not be admitted to
the College in the 6th semester. Accordingly, the parents met the Principal.
All the parents pleaded to the College to continue the students until they
complete the course. According to the college, the parents did not respond to
the letter. While so, the College sent the Transfer Certificate along with
their letter dated 02.01.2008.
5.The parents of the petitioner complained to the Anna University in their
letter dated 11.01.2008 stating that the petitioner was unjustly sent out of the
College. A detailed letter was sent stating that the College arbitrarily acted
against the petitioner. It is stated that they met the Principal, Head of the
Department and the Chairman for continuation of the studies of the petitioner in
the College.
6.The petitioner also sent another letter dated 11.01.2008 to the Anna
University about the conduct of the College that the College arbitrarily
despatched the Transfer Certificate and thereby, he was not able to continue the
studies.
7.In these circumstances, according to the petitioner, the University
directed the College to permit the students to continue their studies and
accordingly, they were permitted to pursue their studies and they appeared for
the 6th semester examinations.
8.When the college re-opened after the semester holidays on 26.06.2008,
the petitioner was not permitted to attend 7th semester classes. No written
order was issued.
9.The students complained to one students’ organization viz., Students
Federation of India. The said organization took up the cause of the students
with the Anna University. They sent a fax complaining the arbitrary action of
the College in not permitting the students to continue their studies. The
College insisted the students to get their Transfer Certificates unjustly and
arbitrarily.
10.The University sent a letter dated 23.07.2008 to the College, in
response to the complaint received from the Students Organization and directed
the College to send their remarks in respect of the said matter along with the
fax received from the Students Federation of India.
11.It seems that no remarks were offered by the College for their conduct.
The College did not explain the reason as to why the students including the
petitioner were not permitted to attend the classes for 7th semester from
26.06.2008.
12.In these circumstances, the University sent a letter dated 04.08.2008
advising the college to permit the students to continue their studies.
13.Thereafter, the Commissioner of Technical Education has also sent a
letter dated 07.08.2008 to the College, to permit the students to continue their
studies.
14.In the mean time, one among the 7 students did not pursue his studies
in the College. In the said circumstances, the College sent a circular dated
13.08.2008 permitting six students to attend the classes from that day onwards.
Though the name of the petitioner is found place in the circular dated
13.08.2008, he was not permitted to attend the classes. Hence, he filed
W.P.(MD) No.7943 of 2008 to attend the classes pertaining to the 7th semester.
An interim order was passed on 12.09.2008, directing the 1st respondent to
permit the petitioner to attend the 7th semester classes. Thereafter only, the
petitioner was permitted to attend the classes from 16.09.008.
15.While so, the College sent a communication dated 01.10.2008 that the
petitioner lacks attendance for appearing 7th semester examination that was to
commence from 13.10.2008. According to the College, the petitioner had only 16%
of attendance up to 30.09.2008, while the required attendance is 75%. Thus, the
petitioner has filed the writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.9770 of 2008, praying to
quash the aforesaid letter dated 01.10.2008 of the College, not permitting the
petitioner to appear in the examination and for a direction to the respondents
to permit the petitioner to attend 7th semester examinations.
16.The writ petition was admitted on 03.11.2008. While admitting the writ
petition, this Court issued an interim direction in M.P.(MD) No.4 of 2008 in
W.P.(MD) No.9770 of 2008 to the respondents, to permit the petitioner to attend
the examinations for 7th semester of B.E.(Mechanical) course that was scheduled
to commence on 07.11.2008. It is stated that the result of the petitioner shall
not be published until further orders from this Court. Hence, his result is yet
to be published.
17.At this juncture, it is relevant to note that the other 5 students, who
were similarly situated like the petitioner were permitted to write 7th semester
examination by the College and their results were published. It is also
relevant to note that those students were permitted only on 13.08.2008 as
narrated above. It is surprising that the College states that the special
classes were conducted for those students and thereby required attendance were
given to them. It is not known as to why the same treatment was not given to
the petitioner, since tuition fees for the 7th semester was collected from the
petitioner also like other students.
18.The 8th semester commenced from the 1st week of December 2008. The
College sent a letter dated 03.12.2008, informing the petitioner that since he
had only 21% attendance in the 7th semester classes, it should be treated that
he did not complete the said semester. Therefore, he could not be permitted to
attend the 8th semester classes.
19.The petitioner sent a representation to the University stating that
again he was unjustly denied permission to attend the classes during 8th
semester. This time, the University issued a direction, dated 10.12.2008 to the
College, to permit the petitioner to attend the 8th semester classes.
Accordingly, the petitioner was permitted to attend the classes from 15.12.2008.
The petitioner attended the classes and he had the requisite attendance for the
8th semester. When the 8th semester examination was to commence in April/May
2009, the University sent a letter dated 06.04.2009, to the petitioner stating
that since the result of the 7th semester examination was withheld, subject to
the result of the writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.9770 of 2008, the petitioner
could not be permitted to appear for the 8th semester examination during April
2009. This has forced him to file the writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.3443 of 2009
to quash the said order dated 06.04.2009 of the University. While admitting the
writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.3443 of 2009 on 18.04.2009, this Court issued a
direction in M.P.(MD) No.2 of 2009 to the respondents to permit the petitioner
to take up the 8th semester examinations that commenced from 20.04.2009. It is
stated that the result of the examination shall be withheld until further orders
of this Court. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner was permitted to take both
the theory and practical examinations for 8th semester.
20.The College filed the counter affidavit and also filed typed set of
papers. The University has not filed any counter affidavit.
21.Heard both sides.
22.I have considered the submissions made on either side.
23.The College informed 7 students that they were issued Transfer
Certificates in their letter dated 10.11.2007. The said letter dated 10.11.2007
is extracted hereunder:
“I am directed by the Management Committee to issue the Transfer
application to your son because of the following reasons. He shall not continue
to study at Infant Jesus College of Engineering during the Even semester.
1.He has not got signature in the observation and Record note book in
time.
2.Not written and passed the Series Tests and Model Test.
3.He was very rude and rough to the Faculty Members.
4.He instigated other students to boycott classes.”
The reason for the decision to issue Transfer Certificate to the petitioner is
extracted above. Before passing the said order, none of the students including
the petitioner were heard. The reason given in the letter dated 10.11.2007 is
also vague without any details. The said order dated 10.11.2007 is highly
arbitrary and no prudent educational institution could issue such an order
without following the basic principles of natural justice. This shows the very
attitude of the College and the bent of mind exhibited by them.
24.The said narration of facts are not in dispute. After sending the
aforesaid letter dated 10.11.2007, the College sent the Transfer Certificates
along with their letter dated 02.01.2008. It was complained to the University.
The University seems to have interfered and the students were permitted to
continue the course and they completed 6th semester.
25.The College did not leave the matter and they unjustly denied
permission to attend the classes to all the 7 students for the 7th semester
classes. One of the students did not pursue his studies in the College. The
six others including the petitioner complained the matter to one Students
organization viz., Students Federation of India and the said organization took
up the matter with the Anna University by sending fax. The University sent a
letter dated 23.07.2008 to the College Seeking to send remarks. The letter
dated 23.07.2008 of the Anna University to the College seeking its remarks is
extracted hereunder:
” I am to inform you that a fax letter has been received from the III
Year, B.E. (Mechanical) students of your college, through Thiru.P.Uchimakali,
District, Indian Students Association, Tirunelveli, requesting permission to
continue their studies in your college, as the college management is not
allowing them to attend the classes.
In this regard, you are requested to sent your early remarks in respect of
the above matters to this office. I enclose herewith a copy of the above
reference for your early remarks.”
26.In spite of the letter from the Anna University, directing the College
to send their remarks for not admitting the students for classes, the College
did not choose to send their remarks. The College also did not choose to permit
the students to attend the classes. In these circumstances, the Anna University
sent a letter dated 04.08.2008, directing the College to permit the students
including the petitioner. The letter dated 04.08.2008 sent by the Anna
University to the College is extracted hereunder:
“I am to inform you that one more requisition letter has been received
from the IV Year B.E. (Mech.) students of your college, requesting permission to
continue their studies at your college, as they are not allowed to attend the
classes and insisted by the management to get their Transfer Certificate. They
have requested pardon for their mistakes, if anything, done by them. Further,
they have informed that they will not do any problems against the college, in
future.
In this regard, you are requested to consider the welfare of the students
and also permit them to continue their studies in your college. Hence, I
enclose herewith a copy of the 3rd reference of your remarks to send the same to
this office, at the earliest.”
27.The Commissioner of Technical Education, Chennai also directed the
college in his letter dated 07.08.2008, to permit the students to continue their
studies. Only thereafter, the college sent the circular dated 13.08.2008,
permitting the six students including the petitioner to attend classes. It is
not known as to why the College acted contrary to their circular and did not
permit the petitioner alone, while the other students were permitted to attend
the classes from 13.08.2008 onwards.
28.Since the petitioner was not permitted to attend the classes, he was
constrained to approach this Court and got an interim order on 12.09.2008 to
attend the classes. Thereafter, he was permitted to attend the classes from
16.09.2008.
29.The aforesaid narration of facts would make it clear that the
petitioner could not be blamed for not attending classes from 26.06.2008 to
15.09.2008. The other 5 students, who were similarly situated like the
petitioner, were permitted to attend the classes only from 13.08.2008 and they
were also unjustly denied permission to attend the classes from 26.06.2008 to
13.08.2008. When the petitioner had 21% of attendance for 7th semester and did
not have 75% of attendance, the other 5 students could not have 75 % of
attendance, since they also did not attend the classes from 26.06.2008 to
13.08.2008. But, they were certified that they attended 75% classes. It is
stated that they were asked to attend special classes. It is not known as to
why the same treatment was not given to the petitioner. It is an admitted fact
that all the students including the petitioner paid fees for 7th semester
course. In my view, the petitioner could not be blamed for lack of attendance
in the said circumstances. Had he been permitted to attend classes from
26.06.2008, he could not have lacked in attendance.
30.Not attending of classes between 26.06.2008 to 15.09.2008 was not due
to sickness or otherwise, but only in the aforesaid circumstances, for which the
petitioner could not be blamed. Thus, this Court, in the said circumstances, by
an interim order in W.P.(MD) No.9770 of 2008, directed the respondents to permit
the petitioner to appear for 7th semester examination.
31.Even when the 8th semester commenced in the 1st week of December 2008,
without any reasons, the College refused permission to the petitioner to attend
the classes. The classes commenced on 03.12.2008. When the matter was
complained, the University sent the letter dated 10.12.2008, directing the
college to permit the petitioner to attend the classes. Thereafter only, the
petitioner was permitted to attend classed from 15.12.2008. Fortunately, the
intervention of the University was immediate and therefore, there was no lack of
attendance. In any event, though he had sufficient attendance, the University
passed the impugned order dated 06.04.2009, stating that the petitioner could
not be permitted to appear in April 09 examinations for 8th semester, since the
result of the 7th semester was yet to be published.
32.Since the petitioner had sufficient attendance, the University is not
correct in passing the impugned order dated 06.04.2009. Since the petitioner
had sufficient attendance for 8th semester, the University should have permitted
him to appear for the examination, particularly in the aforesaid circumstances.
In any event, this Court intervened by an interim order in W.P.(MD) No.3344 of
2009 and permitted the petitioner to take the 8th semester examinations.
However, this Court passed an order that the result would be subject to the
result of the further orders of this Court.
33.Considering the facts and circumstances, in my view, there is no
impediment for directing the University to publish the results of 8th semester,
particularly taking into account the aforesaid facts and taking into account the
fact that the student would not be blamed for any of the events.
34.As far as the result of 7th semester is concerned, I have already
categorically held that the petitioner was prevented from attending the classes
from 26.06.2008 to 15.09.2008. The matter was complained to the University and
the University sought for remarks as to why the petitioner was not permitted to
attend the classes. The College did not choose to send their remarks. The
University directed the college to permit the petitioner to attend the classes.
Thereafter, the Commissioner of Technical Education also issued a direction to
permit the petitioner to attend the classes. Thereafter only, the College
issued a circular dated 13.08.2008, permitting all the 6 students to attend
classes. However, contrary to their circular, the petitioner alone was not
permitted to attend the classes, while 5 others were permitted. The petitioner
approached this Court and got an interim order and thereafter only, he was
permitted to attend the classes from 16.09.2008. Hence, the petitioner could
not be blamed for lack of attendance and the lack of attendance was due to the
act of the college, by not permitting him to attend the classes from 26.06.2008
to 15.09.2008, arbitrarily.
35.Taking into account the aforesaid facts, this Court gave an interim
direction, directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to take the 7th
semester examination, though the petitioner did not have sufficient attendance.
In the aforesaid circumstances of the case, the result of the 7th semester could
not also be withheld. Already, the petitioner has suffered a lot. The
students, who joined along with him, completed their course even in April 2009.
Now, he has lost two years in his career, for no fault of his.
36.In the peculiar circumstances of the case and for the detailed reasons
given above and in the interest of justice, the respondent University is
directed to publish the result of the 7th and 8th semester examination, for
which he appeared. The results shall be published with in a period of two weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
37.The writ petitions are disposed of on the above terms. No costs.
arul
To
1.The Registrar,
Anna University,
Chennai – 600 025.
2.The Commissioner of Technical Education,
Department of Technical Education,
Chennai – 600 025.
3.The Controller of Examination,
Anna University,
Chennai.