IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2009 / 3RD MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 22873 of 2008(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- EARNEST XAVIER, POTHENPALLY HOUSE, KUMBALANGI.P.O, COCHIN-682007. BY ADV. SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. MAHATHMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR. 2. VICE CHANCELLOR, MAHATHMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM. 3. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, MAHATHMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM. 4. PRINCIPAL, THE COCHIN COLLEGE, COCHIN-682 002. ADV. SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY FOR R1-3 SRI.P.GEORGE VARGHESE FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX Ext.P1. True copy of the Ist year B. com marklist. Ext.P2. True copy of the 2nd year B. Com marklist. Ext.P3. True copy of the certificate dated 23.8.2007 Ext.P4. True copy of the relevant pages of general information of M.G. University regulations. Ext.P5. True copy of Condo nation application dated 23.8.2007. Ext.P6. True copy of the recommendation dated 23.8.07. Ext.P7. True copy of the letter dated 23.8.07. Ext.P8. True copy of the rejection order dt.28.9.2007 Ext.P9. True copy of the rejection order dated 7.7.08. Ext.P10. True copy of the transfer certificate dated 14.8.2007. Ext.P11. True copy of the conduct certificate dt.14.8.2007 // true copy // P.A to Judge. ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No. 22873 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner was a B.Com student under the 4th respondent college, affiliated to the first respondent University. He underwent the studies during the period 2004-07. Ext.P4 is the rules framed by the University, which specifies the minimum required attendance. Clause V of Ext.P4, being relevant is extracted below for reference. “A student is eligible to appear for the exam if he has 75% attendance of the total working days for regular courses and 80% for professional courses for B. Tech 75%). A shortage of 20 days could be condoned if applied in prescribed form through the Principal. Condonation will be granted only once during a course having annual exams. WP(c).No.22873/08 2 For Semester Courses, condonation will be allowed twice (maximum of 10 days each/Semester).” 2. From the aforesaid provision, it can be seen that the minimum required attendance is 75%. Shortage upto 20 days could be condoned, but however condonation will be granted only once during the course. 3. During the second year, the petitioner had shortage of 10 days of attendance and that was condoned. During the 3rd year again, he was short of 5 days attendance. He applied for condonation of the shortage in 3rd year attendance and that was rejected by Ext.P8, stating that the candidates had already availed condonation previously and therefore they are not eligible for condonation for a second time. Again he made a request to the Controller of Examination of the University and that request was also placed before the Syndicate which met on 12.6.2008. However the request was rejected as it was against the regulations of the university and that was WP(c).No.22873/08 3 communicated by Ext.P9. 4. It is stated that in the meanwhile the examination commenced and on a provisional basis the University permitted the petitioner to appear for the examination. However, the results have not been announced so far. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petition s filed seeking to quash Ext.P8 and P9 and clause 4 of Ext.P4 referred to above. Petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondents to publish the his final year B. Com results. 5. University has filed a counter affidavit. According to the University, the relevant regulation is clause 4 referred to earlier. It is stated that in terms of the aforesaid clause, only once condonation can be given and that in the case of the petitioner the same has been given during the 2nd year. It is stated that in the 3rd year it was impermissible to give condonation and it was therefore that they rejected the request. 6. In so far as the validity of clause 4 of Ext.P4 is WP(c).No.22873/08 4 concerned, counsel for the petitioner contends that the same is an irrational one. According to him, if a person has shortage for 20 days in any one year, he is entitled to enjoy the benefit of clause 4. It is contended that, on the other had, if a student has one day shortage in one year and again one day shortage in another year he will not be entitled to the benefit of clause 4 of the regulations in the second year. This, according to him, defeats the very purpose of the provision. 7. I am not in a position to appreciate the contention that Ext.P4 is irrational or illegal. As already noticed, in Ext.P4, the University has prescribed a minimum attendance requirement and this is 75%. The provision for condonation beyond the minimum is only a concession. Once the University has given concession, it is always open to the University to impose any condition for extending the benefit of that concession. In the wisdom of University, if it has decided that the condonation will be granted only once during the course, this Court will not be justified in substituting that WP(c).No.22873/08 5 view, unless any illegality or arbitrariness is made out, I do not find any merit in the submission made that Ext.P4 is irrational. 8. Counsel for the petitioner then contends that if he is taken as a failed candidate, he will be loosing the benefit of first year and the 2nd year also. According to him, in such a case, he will be loosing his whole career. However, I notice from Ext.P4 that clause 25 there of provides for readmission of students who have discontinued their studies. Clause 25 to the extent it is relevant is extracted below for reference. “Regular students who discontinue their studies can rejoin the same course after obtaining prior sanction from the University (apply to the Registrar through the Principal. Fee is Rs.250(Degree).Rs.300(P.G Course)} Private candidates may refer to chapter on Private Registration. After readmission, the examinations can be written in continuation to WP(c).No.22873/08 6 the previous ones provided the scheme and syllabus remains the same. Otherwise all the papers will have to be attempted again.” 9. When clause 25 provides that, students who have discontinued their studies can get readmission, and write examination in continuation of the previous one, provided the scheme and syllabus remains the same, there is no reason why the same benefit cannot be extended to the students like the petitioner. In my view, on account of the shortage in attendance, he stands on a similar footing like the students, who have discontinued the course, in which case, it should be open to such students also to seek readmission and continue the course. This is all the more so, since there is no case that the syllabus has changed. Therefore the petitioner is entitled to seek re-admission of course as provided in clause 25 Ext.P4. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, I direct that it will be open to the petitioner to apply to the Registrar of the University WP(c).No.22873/08 7 through the Principal, as contemplated in in clause 25 of Ext.P4 regulations in which event, the readmission as provided therein will be granted and the petitioner will be permitted to continue the studies as provided in clause 25 of Ext.P4. The petitioner shall make an application before the 4th respondent, who shall immediately take up the matter with the Registrar of the University who shall grant necessary permission in this behalf. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/