IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2009 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 12529 of 2009(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SAJIN A, S/O. K.ABOO, AGED 21 YEARS, H. NO. 7/772, DARUSALAM ROAD, MATTANCHERY, KOCHI 682 002, MATTANCHERY VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THANCHIPALAM, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., CALICUT, PIN 673 635, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, 2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, PARIKSHA BHAVAN, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., CALICUT, PIN 673 635 3. THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, AKKIKAVU, THRISSUR REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL. ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH FOR R3 SMT.P.JAYALAKSHMI FOR R3 SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UTY. FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. GIRI,J -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 12529 & 15761 of 2009 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard shri. P.M.Ziraj, the learned Counsel for petitioner, Shri. P.C. Sasidharan, Standing Counsel for Calicut University and Sri. P.C. Santheep Ankarath for 3rd respondent, Management. Petitioners in these writ petition and the issues are common. Therefore they have been heard together and one being disposed of by a common judgment. I will refer to the facts in WP(C) No.12529 of 2009 in the first instance. The petitioner is prosecuting his B.Tech course in the 3rd respondent College. He faced shortage of attendance in the 6th Semester. Therefore he applied to the University for condonation of the same. The university condoned the shortage for special reasons. Therefore the petitioner participated in the 6th semester examination. 2. The petitioner prosecuted his 7th semester. There is a dispute as to whether he commenced the 7th Semester on 6.8.08 or 14.8.08. But it is beyond dispute that even in the 7th semester, the petitioner faced shortage of attendance. According to the university, the 7th semester had 64 working days. And the petitioner had attended only 40 days. According W.P.(C) No. 12529 & 15761 of 2009 2 to the petitioner he had attended the class from 6.8.08 onwards. But since his semester fees were remitted on 14.8.08, the management did not take into account his attendance from 6.8.08 onwards. 3. This aspect is disputed by the management. According to them the days when the petitioner attended classes in the 7th semester were taken into account and he has been given the benefit of such attendance. Inspite of the same he has only 40 days of attendance for the 7th semester. The university declined to condone the shortage in the 7th semester. They issued Ext. P3 communication stating that since the petitioner has already availed of a special condonation, (in relation to the 6th semester) further plea for special condonation cannot be entertained. Petitioner approaches the court with the writ petition praying for the following reliefs. 1.Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the respondents to issue hall ticket to the petitioner for attending the 8th semester the B-tech computer science examination commencing from 10.06.2009 and allow the petitioner to attend the said examination. 2.Declare that if any shortage of attendance because of W.P.(C) No. 12529 & 15761 of 2009 3 exhibit P1 memo, that is not due to the latches on the part of petitioner and direct the respondents to condone said shortage of attendance if any. 3.Issue such other writ or orders or directions, which this honourable court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and circumstances of the case. 4. It is contended by him that he had already started attending the 7th semester, that he had applied for the 7th semester examination and therefore his participation in the 7th semester must be treated as regular. This court passed an interim order permitting the petitioner to continue in his 8th semester classes and also directed payment of fee for the 8th semester examination to be remitted subject to further orders in the writ petition. Accordingly the petitioner applied for the 8th semester but he faced a situation where university has declined permission to appear in th 8th semester examination. The result of the 7th semester examination has not been published so far. The university and management have taken a stand that the petitioner faces shortage of attendance in the 7th semester beyond the condonable limit. Therefore the only course available to the petitioner is to redo the 7th and 8th semester, according to them. W.P.(C) No. 12529 & 15761 of 2009 4 4. There is no dispute that the students can avail of special condonation, that is condonation of shortage of attendance beyond 10% to below 20%, only once during the prosecution of a course. The minimum attendance required is 75%. It is also not disputed that the petitioner did avail the benefit of such condonation for the 6th semester. The controversy is whether the petitioner's attendance during the 7th semester is 40 days or whether it is more than 40 days. In the latter event, the shortage of attendance, according to the petitioner, would be within condonable limit and therefore the university would not be required to exercise it's powers of special condonation. 5. Learned standing counsel for the university places before me, copy of the order passed by the university in favour of the petitioner, condoning the shortage of attendance in relation to the 6th semester. Reference is made to Ext.P2 application filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of the shortage of attendance of 55 hours, out of total number of 353 hours for the whole semester. The minimum number of hours required is 283 hours. The percentage of shortage is 15.4%. It is not disputed that the shortage for the 7th semester is therefore more than 10% which will require a special condonation. As much as these W.P.(C) No. 12529 & 15761 of 2009 5 details are available from the petitioner's application, I am unable to accept the case, now put forward by the petitioner that the shortage of attendance as noted in the application is itself incorrect and therefore a special condonation that is to say a condonation of shortage of attendance in excess of 10% is not required for the petitioner in the 7th semester. To accept the said condonation would be to go against the factual details affirmed by the petitioner in Ext.P2 itself. 6. In these circumstances, the petitioner has no alternative but to redo the 7th and 8th semester. I do not find my way to issue directions as sought for by the petitioner. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. But it is made clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioner pursuing Ext.P7 before the University. V. GIRI, JUDGE jma