IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2011 / 7TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 30445 of 2010(E) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. ALEX L.ABRAHAM, S/O.EBENEZER, VETTUKUZHIYIL, VAZHARMANGALAM P.O., CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA. 2. HEMANTH.S, KOCHUKARAKKATTU HOUSE, VETTIMUKAL P.O., ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM. 3. KOSHY M.SAM, MAMKOYIKKAL HOUSE, KALLIMEL P.O., MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.T.DINESH RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. SAINTGITS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KOTTUKULAM HILLS, PATHAMUTTAM P.O., KOTTAYAM-682 532, (AFFILIATED TO M.G.UNIVERSITY), REP. BY ITS MANAGER. 2. THE PRINCIPAL, SAINTGITS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KOTTUKULAM HILLS, PATHAMUTTAM P.O., KOTTAYAM-682 532. 3. PUNNOOSE GEORGE, SECRETARY/MANAGER OF SAINTGITS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, PATHAMUTTAM P.O., KOTTAYAM-32. 4. BABY K.ISSAC, HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT, SAINTGITS COLLEGE, PATHAMUTTAM P.O., KOTTAYAM-32. tss W.P.(C) NO.30445/2010 5. M.G.UNIVERSITY, SURYA KALADY HILLS, KOTTAYAM, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR. 6. THE CONTROLLER OF THE EXAMINATION, M.G.UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM. 7. VICE CHANCELLOR, M.G.UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM. R3 BY ADV. SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI, SC FOR UNIVERSITY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.30445/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DTD. 29.1.2010 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE IST PETITIONER. P2:- COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL OF THE COLLEGE TO THE 3RD PETITIONER. P3:- COPY OF THE MEMO DTD. 3.2.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE IST PETITIONER. P4:- COPY OF THE MEMO DTD. 2.2.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. P5:- COPY OF THE MEMO DTD. 19.3.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD PETITIONER. P6:- COPY OF THE HALL TICKETS ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY TO THE PETITIONES. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 6.5.2010. P8:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 4.2.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT . P9:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 23.6.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE PRINCIPAL. P10:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 29.7.2010 IN W.P.(C) NO.21549/2010 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. P11:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 3.9.2010 OF 6TH RESPONDENT. P12:- COPY OF THE ORDER REPRESENTATION DTD. 16.9.2010 SUBMITTED TO THE PRINCIPAL. P13:- COPY OF THE MEMOS DTD. 18.9.2010 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL OF THE IST RESPONDENT COLLEGE. P14:- COPP RELEVANT PAGES OF THE HANDBOOK (PAGES 1,32, 33. P15:- COPY OF THE LIST OF DEFAULTED CANDIDATES WHO GOT BELOW 75% ATTENDANCE ALONG WITH THE PETITIONER'S NAME. P16:- COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DTD. 28.7.2010 IN THE WRIT PETITION (C) NO.21549/2010. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 30445 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 27th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and the standing counsel appearing for the University. 2. While the first petitioner was undergoing 6th semester course and petitioners 2 and 3 were in the 4th semester of B.Tech, they were placed under suspension. First and second petitioners were placed under suspension for 15 days each and the 3rd petitioner was placed under suspension for 10 days. Although initially they were permitted to appear in the semester examination, they were later prevented from attending the examination for the reason that the University declined to condone their shortage of attendance. 3. At that stage, they approached this Court and filed WP (C) No. 21549/10. By Ext.P10 judgment rendered on 29th of July, 2010, the writ petition was disposed of directing that the Vice Chancellor should reconsider the request of the petitioners for condonation of shortage of attendance taking a lenient attitude WPC No. 30445/10 :2 : towards the students. Accordingly, the matter was reconsidered and Ext.P11 order was passed by the Vice Chancellor. This order shows that since the period of suspension was not regularised, shortage of attendance of the petitioners exceeded the condonable limit, and therefore, the University was not in a position to consider the request of the petitioners for condonation of shortage of attendance. Consequential order passed by the College is produced as Ext.P13 series. It is upon issuance of Exts.P11 and P13 that this writ petition was again filed. 4. The main contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that, in the semesters in question, there were 69 working days. It is stated that minimum required attendance is 75%, and if so, the petitioners should have had 52 days of attendance. According to the learned counsel, petitioners had attendance of 49 days, 49.5 days and 47 days respectively. It is stated that even after excluding the period of their absence, the shortage of attendance in so far as the petitioners are concerned was only of 3 days, 2.5 days and 5 days respectively. According to the counsel, when request for condonation of shortage is made, it is liable to be considered in the light of WPC No. 30445/10 :3 : Clause 8 of the Regulations governing B.Tech Degree Course and if the request was so considered, the shortage was well within the condonable limits. Therefore, it is contended that the view taken in Ext.P11 is erroneous and warrants interference. 5. The claim of the petitioners for condonation of absence has to be dealt with in terms of Clause 8 of the Regulations which lays down the eligibility for appearing in the B.Tech Examinations. In terms of the Regulations, a student should have not less than 75% attendance for appearing in a semester examination. However, condonation is permissible subject to satisfaction of the five conditions mentioned in the regulations, which reads as under: i) His conduct must be satisfactory. ii) The shortage shall not be more than 10% of actual working days. iii) Condonation is given only on medical grounds. iv) The condonation shall be granted subject to rules and procedures prescribed by the University from time to time. v) It is open to the Vice Chancellor to grant condonation of shortage of attendance on the recommendation of Principal. 6. Therefore, if these conditions are satisfied by a student, he is eligible to have his request for condonation WPC No. 30445/10 :4 : considered. A reading of Ext.P11 order passed by the Vice Chancellor does not show that the request of the petitioners were considered in the light of the aforesaid Regulations. On the other hand, the Vice Chancellor appears to have given more stress on the period of suspension rather than the remaining days of absence, which according to the petitioners were eligible for condonation, in view of the fact that those days of absence were supported by medical records. It that be the case, necessarily the request of the petitioners is to be reconsidered. 7. In order to enable the Vice Chancellor to do so, I quash Exts.P11 and P13, and direct that, on the production of a copy of this judgment, 7th respondent shall reconsider the applications made by the petitioners and forwarded by the Principal of the College and pass appropriate orders in the matter. Needless to say that in the process, possible leniency will be shown and orders will be passed at any rate within 7 days of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp