IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2011 / 10TH BHADRA 1933 WA.No. 1295 of 2011() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.13598/2011 Dated 17/08/2011 .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT ---------------------------- THE PRINCIPAL, KMCT DENTAL COLLEGE, MAMPATTA, MANASSERY P.O., MUKKOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673602. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL K.NARENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS ----------------------------------------------------- 1. HASBI M.K., D/O.SHAMSUDHEEN, WHITE HOUSE PANNUR, KIZHAKOTHU, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673572. 2. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 673635. 3. THE DEAN OF STUDENTS WELFARE, DEPARTMENT OF STUDENTS WELFARE, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., TENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673635. ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR FOR R1 ADV.SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW,SC FOR R2 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.19.8.2011 OF THE APPELLANT ADDRESSED TO THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS OF THE UNIVERSITY. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. .................................................................... Writ Appeal No.1295 of 2011 .................................................................... Dated this the 1st day of September, 2011. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. First respondent while a student of Part III in fourth year BDS course gave birth to a child leading to loss of attendance to the extent of 35%. Even though first respondent availed leave for several days during the academic year, she raised a complaint that the college is not maintaining proper attendance register and attendance register maintained itself is not reliable. The University conducted an enquiry and during enquiry University permitted the first respondent to write Part III examination with 65% attendance, whereas the minimum required is 80%. Even though first respondent passed in all examinations except in one practical, the University after publishing her results cancelled it saying that she did not have the required attendance. When she challenged the order issued by the University cancelling her results, the learned Single Judge found from the findings in the enquiry conducted by the University that the attendance register W.A. 1295/11 2 maintained by the college was not fool proof and had defects. Considering this and giving benefit of doubt to the first respondent, the Single Judge allowed her case by cancelling University's order whereby examination result of the first respondent initially published by the University was upheld by the learned Single Judge. It is against this judgment the Principal of the College has filed this appeal. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellant, counsel for the first respondent and Standing Counsel for the University. 2. After hearing counsel appearing for all sides and on going through the judgment of the learned Single Judge, we do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment for more than one reason. In the first place, the first respondent was permitted to write the examination only by the University. Secondly, it was noticed that the attendance register maintained by the management was not fully free from defects. Thirdly, the first respondent had 65% attendance and there is a condonable limit which will raise the attendance to a higher percentage and, therefore, shortfall of attendance is not very serious. We further notice that inspite of shortage in attendance, first respondent has passed W.A. 1295/11 3 in all examinations and she had secured admission in the self-financed college in the merit quota. We do not think the learned Single Judge has exercised discretion in favour of the first respondent wrongly i.e. to allow her to enjoy the fruits of her effort in writing the examination, in which she passed in all examinations except in the practical in one subject. Even though counsel for the appellant contended that the attitude of the first respondent, her father and husband were hostile and the Principal had to even seek Police assistance, we do not think there is any scope for considering all these because first respondent after completing the course study is now out of the college because she was even permitted to continue study in the Part IV course of the last year with which she has completed the course study. We do not think it fair, equitable or reasonable to send back the first respondent to the same college again for studying Part III of the fourth year course. Moreover, University which has cancelled the examination has not challenged the judgment of the learned Single Judge by filing appeal. So much so, we do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge in an appeal filed by the Principal of the W.A. 1295/11 4 college. Accordingly Writ Appeal is dismissed. However, we make it clear that required attendance for the course study should be insisted upon, more so for professional courses like Medical, Engineering etc. However, this case is decided on the peculiar facts and so much so, this should not be treated as a precedent by the University or management. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge P.S.GOPINATHAN Judge pms