(C IN THE HI .flTtT CF KARNATAKA AT BANGALO€ IDATED THIS THZ 5th DAY OF NE 2998 BEFORE THE HCNtBLE MRJUSTIE hEATH S. THAflJR W .P.No .15535h BETWEEN: Miss K.Saritha Shenoy D/o.K.V.Shenoy aced about 22 years residing at No.20 ‘Sri Ganesh’ Cholariayakanahalii R.T.Nagar Post Bangaloree56O 032. ... Petitioner. (by Sri.K.G.Raghavaq,Adv.) AND: The University of Mysore Manasa Gangothri, Mysore Represented by its Registrar. Respondent. (by Sri.Bhrahmarayappa, Adv.) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to declare that the petitioner does not have shortage of attendance and that she is qualified to sit for the ensuing examinations in respect of Previous M.Sc. in Ikaan Development, Department of Studies, Food and Nutrition and direct the respondent University to alley thepetitioner herein to take ti eexaminations and further treat tI’e petitioner as a Student without shortage of attendance, and further grant interim order to direct the respondent University to conduct a seperate practical examination on the 30th May, 1998 along with the final year studSnts by setting a separate question paper and letting the A . .2.. petitioner to sit for her theory examinations and second practical examination on 16—6—98. This writ petition is coming cn for prly. hearing this day, the court made the following: f r ‘.J flU The petitioner has in this petition for a mandamus sought a direction restraining the University from preventing her from appearing in the ensuing M.Sc.(Previous) examination on the ground of shortage in attendance. 2. The petitioners case is that she as attended more than 70% of the classes conducted in various subjects during the academic year ending 30th of April 1998. Her further case is that while sFe was preparing for the examinatior, she was skocked and surprised to learn on 27th May 1998 that she has not attended the prescribed percentage of lecturers and was therefore not eligible for taking the exam, She has sought a . .._. * —3— declaration to the •ffect that she does not suffer from shortage of attendance and that she is qualified to sit in the ensuing examination. 3. Mr.V.C.Brahmarayappa appearing for the University has today filed an affidavit sron by Dr.Shashikala Puttaraj, Chairperson, Department of Studies in food Science and Nutrition of the respondent—University. The affidavit interalia states that out of 303 lecturers including practicals conducted during the academic year 1997—98, the petitioner had attanded only 173 Jécturs which works cut to 57.07% of the total. It is further stated that the Regulations governisjg Master Degree courses framed by the University require a minimum of 75% attendance as a condition of eligibility for any student tot ake final examination. The power to condone any shortage in lectures 40€ Sri. 4 a4a vested in the Vice—Chancellor is exercisable upto 15% and not more than that. Since the petitioner has a shortage of more than 15%, the poser to condone the shortage available to the Vice-Chancellor under Regulation 4 even if exercised in her favour would not be of much parsistance. 4. Mr.Raghavan, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the University ought to have notified to each one of the candidates about the nimiber of lectures attended by him/her so that the students concerned could take remedial action to asoid any shortage in attendance • This was according to the learned counsel essential in the light of a circular issued by the University dated 13th January 1998. He also contended that even independant of any such instructions, it was fair and proper that beofrO the students \ could be declared ineligible they were given / a notice of the shortage and an opportunity ..5. e5e. to make up the deficiency if any. He also made a Ieable attemjt to argue that since the petitioner had attended a Iaitly large number of lectures the attendance recorded by the lecturers concerned may not be entirely trustworthy and may have been manipulated for extraneous reasons. 5. Regulation 4 of the Regulitions governing Master Degree Courses in the respondent—University reads as under: zach year shall be taken as a unit for purpose of calculation of attendance and a student shall be considered to have ccmfleted the attendance for the year, if hq has on the whole attende4 not less than 75% of the number of worzing periods (lectures, semi nars and practicals taken together) during each year. Shortage of attendance upto IS may be condoned by the Vice— Chancellor on the recommendation of tile Head of the Department on payment of the fee prescribed by the University (i.e. if the / a tendance is between 75 and 6C%) There shall be no condonation . . e6e of attendance below 6C% during the year. A student who does not satisfy the requirements of attendance shall not be eligible to take the examination. 1 A plain reading of the above would show that the candidates in order to be eligible for taking the examination must take 75% of the total working periods including lectures seminors and practicals during the year. The Vice—Chancellor’s potr to condone any shortage in the said percentage is limited to 15% only. What 4 important is that the Regulation specifically stipulates that there shall be no condonation of attendance belo 6O during the year and d eclares that a student who does not satisfy the requirements f attenoance snall not ce eligible to tate examination. Fret ‘he affidavit filed on behalf of the University it is evident that the petitioner had 57.07% of attendance to her credit and is therefore on a pla.n reading of Regulation 4 ineligible. The argusent that recording of attendance by its te chers concerned is not faithfull and the suqqes tion that the attendance recorded by them has been deliberately reduced with a view to preventing the petitioner from taking the examination has not impressed me. There is no allegation n the writ petition that the teachers who delivered the lectures on those who conduced the ractic 315 during the year or any one is inimically disposed towards the petitioner so as to justify any further enquiry into any such possibility. It is fairly well settled that allegations of malaf ides cannot be eriquired into unless the same are supported by particulars and unlss ti-c persons against whom they are levelled are arrayed as parties to the orocea— dings. None of these two reiuirements are satisfied in the instant case, I have therefore no hesitation in rejecting the submission ma e by Mr.Raqhavan that the eccrdinq of the attendance of he petitioner was not faithful for extraneous reasnnc e8.e I am supported in the view I have taken by the face that the break up of the attendance of the petitioner shows that the petitioner has not attended the requisite number of lecutres i.e. 75% in each cne subject. Mr.Raghavan has produced before me the details of the lectures attended by the petitioner in each subject from which it appears that the petitioner has been consistantly absent from the classes and fallen short of requisite percentage in each subject. It is therefore, difficult to see how a student who stays away from the classes can explain his or her absence on the hypothesis that all the teachers may have played a mischief by not recording the attei dance properly. 6. Coming then to the alternative submission made by Mr.Raghavan, the regulations do not require any communication to be issued to —9— the tdefltS whether individually or collec tively asking them to attend the classes or informing them about the possibility of shortage in their attendance, The requirement of the Regulation must be presumed to be 1n the knowledge of each student admitted to the course, It IS there ore, the students’ duty be deliqent and ensure that. they attend the requisite number of lectures to be eligible to take the examination, The students cannot shift tflat duty to the University or claim eligibility even when he or she as not attended the requisite percentage of lectures only because the University has not in accordance with the cirrular issued by notifyina th shortages Just because the niversity has issued instruc tions for notifying the shortages with a view to avoid situations where the students may feel handicaped would not make any material difference, The circular instructions issued * , * * 10 . , * ( — 10 — on the subject would not create a right in favour of the candidate or supplant the regulation which is specific and mandatory in its very nature. In the result, I see no reason to interfere, There is no merit in this writ petition which fails and is hereby dismissed Sc1,I 1% mpk/—