IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2011 / 8TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 33900 of 2010(J) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SANDRA.K.SABU, D/O.SABU.K.S, AGED 20 YEARS, 3RD YEAR BDS STUDENT, ST.GREGARIOUS DENTAL COLLEGE, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED, SRI.M.SAJJAD. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM-686 560. 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM-686 560. 3. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM-686 560. 4. THE PRINCIPAL, ST.GREGARIOUS DENTAL COLLEGE, KOTHAMANGALAM-686 691. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI. T.A. SHAJI, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.33900/2010-J: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C).NO.7052/2009 DTD. 04/03/2009. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE MEMO OF THE UNIVERSITY DTD. 10/06/2009. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE COLLEGE DTD. 19/06/2009. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE UNIVERSITY DTD. 18/09/2009. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C). NO.36914/2009 DTD. 23/12/2009. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE COLLEGE DTD. 05/01/2010. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C). NO.36914/2009 DTD. 14/01/2010. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE -DO- -DO- DTD. 22/03/2010. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF -DO- -DO- DTD. 24/05/2010. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ACADEMIC COUNCIL DTD. 10/06/2010. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C). NO.23293/2010-J DTD. 31/08/2010. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE UNIVERSITY DTD. 24/09/2010. EXT.P.13: COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE PRINCIPAL DTD. 11/07/2006. EXT.P.13.A: COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE UNIVERSITY DTD. 07/11/2006. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. 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/