1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:29.09.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. MANIKUMAR WP(MD)No.9742 of 2011 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2011 K.Ramesh Raja :Petitioner -Vs- 1.The Director, Directorate of Technical Education, Chennai - 600 025. 2.The Pricipal, PSN Institute of Technology, PSN Nagar, Ramanathichanputhur, Kumarapuramthoppur Post, Kanyakumari District - 629 402. 3.The Principal, Jaya Polytechnic College, Sawyerpuram, Thoothukudi District - 628 251. :Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the second respondent in connection with the impugned order Letter of attendance given by him in Lr.No.PSNIT/BC/2011-2012/0296, dated 18.08.2011, quash the same as illegal and arbitrary in so far as giving credit of attendance to the period 01.07.2011 to 03.08.2011 and consequently, direct the second respondent to give full credit of attendance for the abovesaid period and thereby direct the 1st and 3rd respondents to accept the same and allow the petitioner to complete the course and publish the results within a stipulated time. For Petitioner :Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu For 1st respondent:Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen,Additional Government Pleader For 2nd respondent:Mr.T.Pon Ramkumar ORDER Challenging the letter of attendance dated 18.08.2011 issued by PSN Institute of Technology, Kanyakumari District, the petitioner has filed the writ petition. He has sought for writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the same, in so far as not giving credit of attendance for the period 01.07.2011 to 03.08.2011 and consequently, prayed for a direction to give full credit of attendance for the above said period. 2.It is the case of the petitioner that he got admission in PSN Institute of Technology, Kanyakumari District, the second respondent herein, for the three year Diploma course in Electrical and Electronics Engineering Branch, for the period 2010-2013. While he was studying in the third semester in second year, on 22.06.2011, a physical education teacher, Mr.Aravind assaulted him, in which he sustained severe bleeding injury When the same was questioned by the parents, the said physical education teacher along with another teacher, Mr.Jedkins further assaulted the petitioner and abused by mentioning his community. As the result of the injuries, the petitioner was admitted in Government Hospital, between 01.07.2011 and 04.07.2011 and that a medical certificate and discharge summary to that effect were also issued. Thereafter, he was treated as an out patient. A complaint regarding physical assault and humiliation caused to the petitioner by mentioning his community was preferred and that a case in Crime No.527 of 2011 has also been registered. Due to inhuman act meted https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 out to the petitioner, he could not attend the classes. Therefore, he filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.7689 of 2011 for a mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 therein, to take appropriate departmental and criminal action against the respondents 7 and 8 therein, for their unlawful activities, based on his representation dated 04.07.2011 and consequently for a direction to the respondents 6 to 8, to pay compensation. However, during the course of adjudication of the writ petition, as the petitioner was unable to pursue his course in the second respondent college, the Principal, Jaya Polytechnic College, Tuticorin District was approached and he came forward to accommodate the petitioner in the said college Realising that he would be wasting his time in the pursuit of the abovesaid writ petition, the petitioner was constrained to restrict his relief seeking for a direction to return his transfer certificate, conduct certificate and other relevant certificates, by filing an sworn affidavit, dated 01.08.2011. 3.Based on the affidavit, this Court has directed the 2nd respondent to return all the certificates, without any delay and adverse remarks. Based on the above, the petitioner applied for transfer from PSN Institute of Technology, Kanyakumari District to Jaya Polytechnic College, Tuticorin District on 04.08.2011 and an order of transfer was also issued by the Director of Technical Education, Chennai on 11.08.2011. After joining, the Principal of the third respondent college asked the petitioner to produce the details of the attendance secured in the second respondent institution Pursuant to which, the second respondent vide impugned letter in PSNIT/BC/2011-2012/0296, dated 18.08.2011 has given the attendance particulars as follows; Period Working hours Hours attended 31.05.2011 to 30.06.2011 161 140 01.07.2011 to 30.07.2011 147 0 01.08.2011 to 03.08.2011 21 0 4.It is the grievance of the petitioner that the second respondent has wantonly not given attendance from 01.07.2011 to 03.08.2011, knowing fully well that the petitioner was admitted in the Government hospital on account of the injuries sustained by him, for which he had been taking treatment and that he was also prevented from attending the classes. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to get full attendance, as the absence was neither willful nor wanton and was only due to the above said act of the teachers of the second respondent college in preventing the petitioner from attending the classes. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the third semester practical and theoretical examinations are scheduled to be commenced shortly and as such, the petitioner has to take part in the said examination, but due to the shortage of attendance shown by the second respondent college, he apprehends that he would not be allowed, to take part in the forth coming examinations. In such circumstances, he would be forced to re-do the course and that the same would affect his educational career. The petitioner has further submitted that just because he belongs to scheduled caste community and hail from a poor family, he has been subjected to inhuman conduct and prevented from attending the classes For the reasons stated supra, he has approached this Court for the reliefs, as stated supra. 5.The Principal of the second respondent college has denied the allegations made by the petitioner that on 22.06.2011, he was assaulted by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 a physical educational teacher. According to him, the said teacher had attended a football tournament held at Scott Christian College. Nagercoil, along with other students. He has submitted that none of the staff members of the institution knows the caste/community/ religion of any student. He has also submitted that only when the police came to the college and enquired about Mr.Aravind and Mr.Jetkins, they came to know that the petitioner has been admitted in a hospital and that he has also lodged a complaint against the said teachers and that a criminal case has been registered against them. The second respondent has further submitted that as the issue was sensitive on 06.07.2011, a committee was constituted to enquire into the matter and after enquiry, a report dated 07.07.2011 has been submitted. The report revealed that allegations as false. However, he submitted that allegations against the said teachers are subject matter of investigation in crime No.527 of 2011. The second respondent has denied the contention that the petitioner was prevented from attending the classes On the contrary, he submitted that the petitioner himself did not attend the classes. It us also submitted that the petitioner has not preferred any complaint to the Principal or the head of the department complaining any illegal act of preventing the petitioner from attending the classes. He has also submitted that the petitioner himself decided to get back the certificates from the second respondent college and therefore, at this juncture, it is not open to him to contend that he was prevented from attending the classes. It is also submitted that if the petitioner had been prevented from attending classes, nothing prevented him from filing any miscellaneous petition in the earlier writ petition. However, the second respondent has submitted that, if the petitioner applies to the college, along with a medical certificate, for the period from 01.07.2011 and 10.07.2011 or any other relevant period, the second respondent would forward the same to the Director of Technical Education, Chennai, the first respondent herein for appropriate orders. According to the second respondent, every month, the college has to sent the attendance particulars of the students to the Directorate, by way of E Attendance (Electronic Mode of Attendance) and the attendance particulars of the every student is automatically updated every month and accordingly, the second respondent has also sent the E attendance to the first respondent. Since the petitioner has not attended the classes, attendance cannot be granted as a matter of right. The second respondent has further submitted that as per the norms, candidates have to secure 80 % of the attendance, to sit for the examination. Likewise, candidates who have put in attendance between 75% and above and less than 80% and any shortage, due to medical reasons, can be considered for appearance in the examination subject to production of medical certificate. According to him, the petitioner has attended only 140 period and has 41.48% attendance only. For the abovesaid reasons, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 6.Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 7.Perusal of the supporting affidavit to W.P.(MD).No.7689 of 2011 shows that the petitioner was physically assaulted and that he was admitted as an inpatient in Government hospital for four days i.e., from 01.07.2011 to 04.07.2011 and during the period of treatment, in the hospital, on intimation, the Inspector of Police (L & O), Anjugramamam Police Station, Kanyakumari District, has obtained a statement from the petitioner on 02.07.2011 at 5.30 p.m., wherein he has narrated the incident taken place in the college and requested that action should be taken against Mr.Aravind and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 Mr.Jetkins, physical education teachers in PSN Institute of Technology, Kanyakumari District. A criminal case has also been registered against them in Crime No.527 of 2011 under Section 311, 294-B, 323 IPC. Though the complaint reveals offences under the penal provisions of prevention of SC/ST Atrocities Act, the averment made in the supporting affidavit filed in W.P (MD).No.7689 of 2011 shows that minor offences alone were registered at the instance of Mr.Jetkin's father, who was a Special Sub Inspector of Police, working in Kanyakumari District. The said averment has not been rebutted by filing any counter affidavit. However, on the basis of an affidavit, dated 01.08.2011, filed by the writ petitioner, directions were issued to accommodate the petitioner in the third respondent college, by issuing appropriate transfer order, by the Director of Technical Education, Chennai. Though the second respondent college has denied the allegations of the petitioner, stating that no such incident, had taken place in the college, the fact that hospital authorities have registered a medico legal case and on intimation, the police have recorded a statement on 02.07.2011 from the petitioner and consequently, a crime No.527 of 2011 has been registered, against the teachers under Sections 341, 294-B and 323, IPC, cannot be disputed, as they are borne out of official records. 8.The contention that nothing has happened in the college cannot be believed and there is no reason, as to why the petitioner should get himself admitted in a hospital. Registration of a crime against the teachers has been admitted by the Principal of the second respondent college and that the police has also gone to the college for enquiry. In the counter affidavit, the Principal has categorically admitted that he was aware that the petitioner was admitted in the hospital and that the police also came to the college and enquired about the two physical education teachers. According to the Principal, as the issue was sensitive, a committee was constituted and the matter was also enquired, knowing fully well that the injured was taking treatment in the hospital and a report has been prepared, giving a clean chit to the teachers. No where in the counter affidavit, the Principal has stated as to whether he has taken any steps to examine the alleged victim, in the hospital or even summoned his parents. When he is aware of the criminal complaint against the teachers, he has not even shown any interest, either to see the alleged victim by himself or depute any member of the committee to examine the petitioner. But the Principal has sworn to an affidavit stating that the committee constituted has submitted a report, stating that the allegations as false. The report submitted by the committee is purely one sided. When the Principal himself has admitted that the issue was serious, is he not obligated to examine the student, who was allegedly beaten up by the teachers?. On the own pleadings of the Principal of the second respondent college, this Court could infer bias in the approach and manner in which the enquiry has been conducted by the committee. 9.Prima facie the police have found that the petitioner has been restrained from attending the classes and that a investigation into crime under Sections 341, 294(b) and 323 IPC, is stated to be pending. Sections 341, 294 and 323 are reproduced hereunder: "341.Punishment for wrongful restraint- Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be published with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both. 294.Obscene acts and songs.-Whoever, to the annoyance of others- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5 (a)does any obscene act in any public place, or (b)sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place. shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both. 323.Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.- Whoever, except in the case provided for by Section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both." 10.Though the principal of the second respondent college has contended that nobody had prevented the petitioner from attending the classes and that having not chosen to prefer any miscellaneous petition in W.P.(MD).No.7689 of 2011, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that the petitioner was prevented from attending the classes, it is to be noted that the principal himself has come forward to undertake to forward any representation made by the petitioner along with a medical certificate for the period between 01.07.2011 to 10.07.2011 or relevant period. Perusal of the discharge summary enclosed at page 9 of the typed set of papers shows that the petitioner was treated as an inpatient in the Government hospital between 01.07.2011 and 04.07.2011. The diagnosis noted by the Doctors is “multiple injuries”. How could the petitioner sustain multiple injuries suddenly, without there being any incident and why should he give a statement, in the hospital to the police alleging physical attack on him? It is unfortunate that a poor student belonging to a downtrodden community, had not even been examined in the enquiry ordered by the college. From the averments made by the second respondent college undertaking to forward the request of the petitioner for granting attendance from 01.07.2011 to 10.07.2011 or for any relevant period, the discharge summary issued by the Dean, Kanyakumari Government Medical College Hospital, the nature of the injuries (multiple injuries) recorded by the medical officer, in the Discharge Summary, period of treatment as an inpatient in the hospital, it could be reasonably presumed that the injuries would have required further treatment. Though the second respondent institution has contended that the petitioner has not come forward with any miscellaneous petition in the earlier writ petition, seeking permission to attend the classes, the mere registration of crime under Section 341 IPC itself would show that prima facie there was wrongful restraint. The contents in the complaint dated 04.07.2011, also disclose, discrimination on the ground of community. In the above said circumstances, any one can visualise, as to whether a student who has allegedly beaten up by the teachers and wrongfully restrained would have been permitted to attend the classes. Merely because, he has not filed any miscellaneous application in the earlier writ petition, that would not preclude him from contending that he was prevented from attending the classes. From the averments made in W.P.No.7689 of 2011, it is evident that as he did not get a fair treatment in the college, his intention was to pursue his course in some other polytechnic. At this juncture, it should be noted that even if a person secures a minimum mark in Higher Secondary Course and still afford to pay the fees to pursue a Degree course in some engineering college, admissions are obtained. But if a student who hails from a poor background can only think of a Diploma in engineering course. As rightly contended by the petitioner, denial of attendance for the period stated supra, would affect the educational career of a student. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6 11.For all the students in an educational institution, the principal is like a father. In Ashish Suman and Ors. v. National Law School of India reported in AIR 2003 Kar 136, while dealing with the power of the Courts to interfere with the decision of academic bodies and the restrictions on the powers of the court, the Karnataka High Court has held that the Principal is the best judge to determine what action is to be taken against the students, accused of pre-admission misconduct. To limit his powers to the misconducts in the Course of studies would render him ineffective as the head of the institution. Therefore, it is unconceivable that a parent, while trying to correct and maintain discipline, would ruin the child. Same should be the case with the Principal. Courts have generally set certain limitations and self-imposed restrictions on them while decisions of Academic bodies under their discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Courts “ fear to tread” and decline “to rush in”, to quash the decisions of responsible academic bodies. This does not mean a licence for doing injustice being judicially accorded to such bodies, but a fair expectation that they will not deviate ordinarily from the path of fair play. If they palpably do, the writ must go, the ultimate test is the response of the judicial conscience to the doings of these bodies, in the given case, remembering the incurable wound on the career and in the indelible stain on the character of the student that they follow upon an unjust accusation and verdict, academic excellence, international repute, cannot be used as a shield to perpetuate injustice on helpless students and ruin their career and future. 12.Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the Principal of the college, ought to have considered the case of the petitioner sympathetically and granted attendance for the period during which the petitioner was hospitalised and the subsequent period of treatment, by obtaining necessary letter accompanied by a medical certificate. 13.In the light of the above discussion, the impugned letter is set aside and the 2nd respondent college, shall issue necessary attendance certificate to the petitioner, for the period from 01.07.2011 to 03.08.2011, and also forward the same to the Director of Technical Education, Chennai, so that the petitioner could take part in the ensuing examination. 14.In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To:The Director,Directorate of Technical Education, Chennai. +1CC to Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu, Advocate. SR.No.34300. +1CC to Mr.T.Ponkumar, Advocate. SR.No.34300. +1CC to The Special Government Pleader. SR.No.34370. Gcg W.P.(MD)No.9742 of 2011 RP/30.09.2011/6P/5C. 29.09.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/