IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09/08/2002
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA
W.P.NO.11833 OF 2002
and
W.M.P.Nos.15934 and 27308 OF 2002
K. Manonmani .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Registrar,
University of Madras,
Chennai 600 005.
2. The Principal,
Madras School of Social Work,
32, Casa Major Road,
Chennai 600 008. .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the
issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.
For Petitioner : M/s.B. Maheswari &
R. Nagalakshmi
For Respondent-1 : Mr.Ezhilmani
Respondent-2 : Mr.N.C. Ramesh
:J U D G M E N T
This writ petition has been filed to quash the order of the
second respondent date 14.2.2002 informing the petitioner to repeat the field
work of I year M.S.W. programme during the academic year 2002-2003 and for a
direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue II year
M.S.W. programme.
2. The facts of the case giving rise to the present writ
petition briefly stated are as follows :-
The petitioner after completion of her graduation in Sociology,
applied for M.S.W. programme in Madras School of Social Work for the academic
year 2001-2003 and she was admitted in the said course. As per the norms, to
complete the first year, such a student is required to to field work including
40 days, i.e. hours of concurrent field work. The petitioner had joined
Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board for doing the aforesaid field work. During
the period of concurrent field work, the petitioner could not attend field
work for a few days due to entric fever and subsequent relapses and thereafter
she joined the field work. However, on 14.2.2002, the second respondent
issued a letter indicating that the petitioner had lost 35% of field work days
with regard to concurrent field work of M.S.W. programme and therefore, she
was required to repeat the concurrent field work programme during the academic
year 2002-2003 and only thereafter she would be permitted to undergo II year
of M.S.W. programme. The petitioner on 6.2.200 2 gave a letter indicating
about 10 days of absence by calculating Christmas and Ponal holidays along
with working days and subsequently again she wrote another letter on 27.3.2002
indicating that she had missed only 5 days of field work and she should be
allowed to attend viva-voce to be held on 11.4.2002. As per the Rules, if a
student misses the field work upto 20%, can be permitted to compensate for the
missed days by working on other days, but the petitioner has been deprived of
such an opportunity. The petitioner has prayed for a direction to the
respondents to permit her to complete the field work and continue in II year
of M.S.W. programme.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the second
respondent denying the allegations made in the writ petition. It has been
indicated in the counter that on her own showing, the petitioner had missed 10
days of field work and since the absence was for a period of about 35%, as
per the Rules, there was no scope of condoning the absence of the petitioner.
Even the Medical Certificate furnished by the petitioner regarding her illness
has been doubted in the counter.
4. Subsequently, an affidavit has been filed by the
Supervisor in charge of the field work. It is stated in the affidavit that
the petitioner fall short of attendance in doing field work and accordingly
she was not allowed to complete the field work.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has placed
reliance upon a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 1998 Writ
L.R. 23 (VICE CHANCELLOR, TAMIL NADU Dr. M.G.R. MEDICAL UNIVERSITY, GUINDY,
MADRAS & OTHERS Vs. VASANTHI SELVARAJU AND OTHERS)indicating that in the
matters relating to Rules and Regulations of the Universities, particularly
regarding Educational matters, the Court should be very slow to interfere with
the orders passed or otherwise there may be a fall in the education standard.
6. Even though the petitioner has now tried to explain away
her absence for 5 days, her own application filed earlier clearly indicates
about her absence for 10 to 11 days. If such absence is considered, there is
no escape from the conclusion that the petitioner has fallen short of the
required percentage of the field work to be undertaken. It is true that
unfortunately the petitioner had fallen ill and had relapses (even though such
assertion has been faintly denied, I have no reason to disbelieve the
assertion of the petitioner). In the present case, the absence of the
petitioner for more than 20% is fortified by her earlier application before
the authorities as well as the affidavit filed by the Supervisor. The
subsequent explanation of the petitioner that her absence was only for 5 days
and Christmas and Pongal holidays have been erroneously included cannot be
justified.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merits in the
writ petition and the same is dismissed subject to the observation that the
petitioner should be permitted to do necessary field work required for the
first year during the academic year 2002-2003 and if any field work days have
been missed due to pendency of the writ petition, opportunity may be given to
the petitioner to complete the same by undertaking compensatory field work.
There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.15934 & 27308 of
2002 are closed.
09-08-2002
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
dpk
To
1. The Registrar,
University of Madras,
Chennai 600 005.
2. The Principal,
Madras School of Social Work,
32, Casa Major Road,
Chennai 600 008.
P.K. MISRA, J.
W.P.NO.11833 OF 2002 and
W.M.P.Nos.15934 and 27308/02