IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 24TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 37620 of 2007(C) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------------- DHANYA S., LL.B. (III YEAR) STUDENT, GOVT.LAW COLLEGE, THRISSUR, W/O. SUGATHAKUMAR, SUSHAMA COTTAGE, ALANKODE, OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P SRI.M.SUGADHA KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE REGISTRAR, CALICUT UNIVERSITY, CALICUT. 2. THE PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE, THRISSUR. 3. THE CLASS TEACHER, 2ND SEMESTER LL.B. (III YEAR) 2007-2008 ACADEMIC YEAR, GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE, THRISSUR. R2 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH R1 BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UTY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.37620/2007 C APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE MARKLIST OF THE PETITIONER IN FINAL YEAR B.A. EXT.P2: COPY OF IDENTITY CARD OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE LEAVE LETTER DTD. 5/10/07 FROM THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DTD. 30/10/07. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF COLLEGE CALENDER OF THE GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE 2006-07. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.GA1/G3/1500/92 DTD.13/10/92. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 10/12/07 FROM THE PETITIONER. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF MY MARK LIST FROM THE WEBSITE. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM APPEARED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DTD. 25/12/2007. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM APPEARED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DTD. 09/01/2008. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DTD. 11/12/2007. EXT.P13: COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD. EXT.P14: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 10/12/2007. EXT.P15: COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 16/01/2008. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 37620 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated: February 13, 2008 JUDGMENT The prayer sought for in this writ petition is to quash the order of the 2nd respondent removing the petitioner from the rolls of the college. Petitioner also seeks a direction requiring the 2nd respondent to allow the petitioner to continue the course in the second semester. 2. At the outset, I should clarify that the petitioner has not been removed as stated by her, but only detained in the second semester. 3. The controversy is in relation to the attendance required in the second semester of LLB course of which the petitioner is a student. It is stated that in terms of the University regulations, to be eligible to appear for the examination, a student should have 75% of attendance. In the second semester of which this writ petition is concerned, during the period 1.7.2007 to 31.10.2007, there were 45 working days. To make 75% attendance, a student should have attended the classes for atleast 34 days. WP(C) 37620/07 Page numbers 4. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, she had attended the classes only for 9 days which makes 22% attendance. It is stated by the petitioner that during the month of October 2007, for medical reasons she was absent for 15 days. According to the petitioner she had submitted Ext.P3 leave application to the 2nd respondent, but the same was refused to be accepted. According to her thereafter Ext.P3 application which is dated 5.10.2007 was sent by registered post acknowledgment due and Exts.P12 and P13 are relied on to prove service on the 2nd respondent. It is to be noted that these documents show the date of despatch as 11.12.2007. 5. As already noticed, her actual attendance out of 45 working days was only 9. She has to have 75% of attendance equivalent to 34 days to be eligible to appear for the examination. Her sickness was of 15 days. Even if this absence is condoned, that will make a total attendance of 24 days and there is still a shortage of 10 days. In order to get this shortage of 10 days absence condoned, petitioner relies on Ext.P6 regulations of the University governing condonation of absence of students. 6. However, Ext.P6 itself provides that condonation will be WP(C) 37620/07 Page numbers granted only once during the entire course other than for B.Tech. It is also stated that if condonation of shortage of attendance exceeds the permissible days of 24, the Principal of the college should not forward such application to the University. From this it is obvious that during the entire course the maximum number of days for which condonation can be granted by the University is 24. If it is beyond that, the Principal should not forward the application to the University which means condonation beyond 24 days is not permissible. 7. As already noticed, to make 34 days of attendance for the petitioner, she should get the 15 days absence due to sickness condoned first and even thereafter she need another 10 days condonation. Thus, unless the petitioner is able to get condonation for 25 days, she will not be able to satisfy the minimum requirement of 75% of attendance. Therefore this exceeds the permissible days of 24 and if that be so, in terms of the aforesaid clause in Ext.P6, the principal should not forward such application to the University. Therefore the request made by the petitioner for condonation exceeds the maximum permissible and cannot be WP(C) 37620/07 Page numbers granted. If that be so, the detention of the petitioner in the second semester cannot be faulted. 8. Relying on Ext.P15 the petitioner contends that on the decision of the staff council, students having less than 75% of attendance have been permitted to appear for the examination. Even if it is true, such permission should not have been granted in the light of the regulations. Therefore I am not prepared to take such irregular permission as a precedent and grant similar benefits to the petitioner. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-