22 to 28 & 29 # % 05.05.2011 Present:- Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Sr. Advocate with I I / Mr. Sulaiman Mohd. Khan for the petitioners. Ms. Harvinder Oberoi for petitioner in W.P.(C) 2970/2011 Mr. M.A. Siddiqui for respondents. + W.P. (C) No. 2633/2011 & CM No. 5611/2011 W.P. (C) No. 2634/2011 & CM 5613/2011 W.P. (C) No. 2635/2011 & CM 5615/2011 W.P. (C) No. 2636/2011 & CM 5617/2011 W.P. (C) No. 2637/2011 & CM 5619/2011 W.P. (C) No. 2638/2011 & CM 5621/2011 W.P. (C) No. 2639/2011 & CM 5623/2011 W.P. (C) No. 2970/2011 & CM No. 6298/2011 By these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek to quash the order of the respondent University debarring them from appearing in the final examinations. Mr. Rakesh Khanna, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners states that these students have not been given the benefit of the attendance of the classes which they have attended in the month of April, 2 011. Counsel further states that even the classes in the subjects of Editing-Sync Dialogue exercise, Sound-working with DAT recorders and '·' .. Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified Introduction to (lQ the SR III-mounting the camera, lens, cleaning and loading the magazine and threading the camera are still being held and if these petitioners are given attendance in the aforesaid subjects, then they can cover their shortfall. On the other hand, Mr. SiddiquL learned counsel for the respondent University duly assisted by Mr. Obaid SiddiquL Director of MCRC submits that the classes had ended on 31st March, 2 011 and after that no classes are being held. Counsel further submits that the final year students •,1; are making their final product for which no attendance is being given by the respondent University to any student. Counsel further sub1nits that these students will continue to make their product even after the written exams. Ms. Harvinder Oberoi learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) 2970/2011 submits that in the - '! case of the present petitioner the Vice Chancellor of the respondent University had agreed to give indulgence to the petitioner but since the petitioner has filed the petition, t;( therefore the petitioner is now being denied indulgence by the Vice Chancellor. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners in this batch of writ petitions are the students of M.A Mass Communication from A.]K MCRC of the respondent University who on account of their shortfall of attendance have been debarred to appear in the final examinations. This court was confronted with the same issue in an earlier batch of three writ petitions whereby this court refused to grant relief to the similarly situated students. This court in WPC 2640/11 titled Fahad Hassan & Drs. vs. Jamia Milia Islamia decided on 28.4.11 held that: "20. Certainly, this court has great sympathy with these petitioners who due to shortage of marginal percentage of attendance would waste their one precious academic year, but if any indulgence, if given, to such students due to sympathy and compassion then the same would result in total indiscipline and chaos thus opening a Pandora's box. Strict view in such like cases would be in the larger interest not only of a student but also of any institution or University. This order was challenged in LPA 405/2011 titled Arhan Sett vs. Jamia Milia Islamia decided on 2.5.1L and the ·J . ! --.. , Hon'ble division Bench while upholding the order of this court held that: "It is to be borne in mind that by attending classes one gets systematic education, which is required and necessary for a student attending a regular course. No university, after framing a rule or ordinance, can show any kind of deviancy or harbor the notion that it can deviate from the same. We say no more on this score. In the ultimate eventuate as we do not perceive any merit in the present appeal, the same is dismissed without any order as to costs." Therefore, the question arising in the present petitions is answered in totality by the aforesaid decisions. So far the contention raised by Mr. Khanna that the classes in the said courses are still being held and the petitioners should be given the benefit of attending such classes is concerned, the same has no merit as the respondent University has already conveyed to these students the total percentage of the classes attended by them in the said academic year 2010-2011. The said argument of the counsel for the petitioners is also crestfallen on account of the fact that the respondent University has carried out the calculation in respect of all the students taking the academic year as ending on 31st . __ :., ·,1: March, 2011, and therefore, no special concession or relaxation can be given to the petitioners for attending the said classes, if any. This fact is also vehemently disputed by the counsel representing the respondent assisted by the Director of the Mass communication Department A.] .K MCRC present in the court today. The argument taken by Ms. Oberoi representing the case of the petitioner in W.P.(C) 2970/2011 is also devoid of any force as the Vice Chancellor of the respondent University cannot give any indulgence to the petitioner in such like matters in view of the decision given by this Court and the Hon'ble Division Bench. In the light of the above discussion, this court does not find any merit in these petitions. The same are accordingly dismissed. DASTI. May 05, 2011 mg KAILASH GAMBHIR, J -" '•': --C.