IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1929 W.A.No.436 of 2008 ------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO..37620/2007 DATED 13/2/2008. .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER:- --------------------------------------- DHANYA. S., LL.B. (3 YEAR) STUDENT GOVT. LAW COLLEGE, THRISSUR, W/O.SUGATHAKUMAR SUSHMA COTTAGE, ALANKODE, OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P SRI.M.SUGATHA KUMAR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS:- ------------------------------------------------- 1. THE REGISTRAR, CALICUT UNIVERSITY, CALICUT. 2. THE PRINCIPAL, GOVT.LAW COLLEGE THRISSUR. 3. THE CLASS TEACHER, 2ND SEMESTER, LL.B (3 YEAR), 2007-2008 ACADEMIC YEAR GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE, THRISSUR. R2 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.Dattu,C.J. & K.M.Joseph,J. -------------------------------------------- W.A.No.436 of 2008 -------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 26th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT K.M.Joseph,J. Appellant is the writ petitioner. The writ petition was filed seeking the following reliefs:- (i) Call for the records relating to attendance registers of the LL.B. Courses (both 3 year and 5 year) of Govt. Law College, Thrissur and attendance shortage list published in the month of September 2007 for all classes of the college; (ii) Issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, quashing the Order of the 2nd respondent to remove the petitioner from the roll of the college; (iii) Issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, directing the 2nd respondent to allow the petitioner to continue the course without detention in 2nd semester, thereby to attend the classes and write the examinations as regular student”. 2. The appellant was detained in the Second Semester of the LLB Course. The reason for detention was that she had not acquired the requisite attendance. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition noting that a student should have 75% attendance. For the Second Semester, out of 45 working days, her actual attendance was only 9. For having 75% attendance, there should be 34 days attendance. The appellant had attended classes only for 9 days, which makes for 22% attendance. It was in such circumstances, the writ petition came to be dismissed. 3. We heard Sri.Liju.M.P., learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.M.P.Sreekrishnan, learned Government Pleader. W.A.No.436 of 2008 - 2 - 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that there were instances where not even a single student was present in the classes and the teachers had to return without conducting classes, which resulted increase in percentage of failure in examination and fall in of the academic standard. Therefore, the Staff Council has decided not to allow any student to write examination if he/she has failed to obtain 50% attendance and in the case of students who have obtained less than 50% attendance but not less than 30%, they were allowed to apply to write the examination by moving application for condonation. It is stated in the counter affidavit that in the case of the appellant, she had not even obtained at least 30% of attendance in the Second Semester. It is further stated that out of the 88 working days in the Second Semester, only 53 days regular classes could be conducted and the appellant attended only on 13 days. 5. The appellant had attended classes only for 13 days in the Second Semester. Thus, it is clear that the appellant had not even obtained at least 30% of attendance. The Staff Council has taken a decision to impose restrictions in the matter of attendance so as to maintain academic standard. In such circumstances, this Court cannot interfere with the decision of the authorities attempting to maintain discipline in the College. We find no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed in limine. Consequently, I.A.No.191 of 2008 is also dismissed. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice K.M.Joseph vku/- Judge