IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 33900 of 2010(J)
1. SANDRA.K.SABU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY
... Respondent
2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR,
3. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS,
4. THE PRINCIPAL,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
For Respondent :SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :28/01/2011
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO.33900 OF 2010(J)
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of January, 2011
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is a BDS student under the 4th respondent. The
college is affiliated to the first respondent University. In the first
year, of the three subjects, petitioner failed in two subjects. As a
result she had to discontinue her course in the 2nd year. She
applied for revaluation and passed in one subject. Though, with
the declaration of revaluation results, she became entitled to
resume her studies, on account of the break, there was shortage
of attendance of about six months.
2. According to the petitioner, in order to make up the
shortage in attendance she was given additional instructions in
the college and the Principal of the College reported the same to
the University as per Ext.P6. However, University took the stand
that the shortage of attendance of the petitioner was beyond the
condonable limits and therefore she was not allowed to appear for
the 2nd year examination. This lead the petitioner to file this writ
petition and in pursuance to the interim order she appeared for
the examination.
WPC.No.33900 /2010
:2 :
3. The question now arises is whether the petitioner was
eligible for appearing for the 2nd year examination.
4. Although, the fact that she had shortage of attendance, is
accepted by the petitioner, she claims that she is entitled for
condonation of shortage on the basis that the college had given
her additional instructions. It is stated that such a course of action
was permissible in view of clause 7.3 of Chapter III of the Kerala
University First Ordinance which governs the petitioner. However,
a reading of the said provision shows that a student who has
failed to earn the required attendance in an academic year at the
end of which there is a university examination, must attend the
college to receive such an additional instruction as the Principal
may prescribe to enable him to issue the annual certificate. This
provision only shows that the Principal is entitled to require a
student to undergo additional instructions and this provision does
not mean that such additional instruction is to be imparted in the
very same academic year. On the other hand in my
understanding, this only means that if in a particular year a
student has shortage of attendance, should undergo additional
instructions in the succeeding year. Therefore the interpretation
WPC.No.33900 /2010
:3 :
now sought to be placed on clause 7.3 of Chapter III cannot be
accepted and the contention that she ought to have been
permitted to appear for the 2nd year examination is only to be
rejected.
5. Counsel then relied on Ext.P13, an order issued by the
Registrar of the University on 7.11.2006 and contended that for
MBBS course shortage of much more attendance was condoned
by the University and therefore the University could not have
adopted a different standard in the petitioner’s case. However,
University explains Ext.P13 as a case of mistake. Irrespective of
Ext.P13 and the contentions raised by the University, question is
whether the shortage of attendance of the petitioner was within
the condonable limits laid down in the Regulations. Admittedly
the shortage of attendance of the petitioner is beyond the
condonable limit. Therefore, the fact that the University has
departed from the rules on one occasion will not enable the
petitioner to rely on that order and insist on repeating the same
in future. Therefore I am not persuaded to issue any direction in
favour of the petitioner relying on Ext.P13.
WPC.No.33900 /2010
:4 :
6. Petitioner then contended that when the results of the
first year examination were declared she had applied for
revaluation and though this court had issued directions for a time
bound revaluation, University delayed revaluation and that
contributed to the situation. It is therefore argued that the
University cannot now be permitted to capitalize out of its own
fault and deny the petitioner her chance to appear for the
examination. Even if it is assumed that there was delay on the
part of the University in publishing the revaluation results, if the
petitioner had a case that such default was in violation of the
directions of this court, petitioner should have initiated
appropriate action against the University at that stage. This was
not done. But then such default on the part of the University
cannot enable the petitioner to claim that the regulations should
be relaxed in her case. Therefore I cannot accept the case of the
petitioner that she ought to have been treated as a student
eligible to appear for the 2nd year examination.
7. For these reasons I see no merit in the writ petition.
However, it is clarified that if the petitioner has undertaken
additional instructions for the second year, petitioner will be
WPC.No.33900 /2010
:5 :
entitled to the benefits on that basis.
Writ Petition is dismissed.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/