Case: Regional Engineering College Hamirpur and Another Vs. Ashutosh Pandey

The respondent before this Court was a student of the appellant College. He fell short of attendance in the last semester. About this, information was furnished to the respondent by placing a notice on the notice board on. He was also informed personally on8 that he was short of attendance in Computer Application classes. It appears, in spite of it, the respondent absented himself from the classes. Further, in the month of April from8 to8 he remained absent and did not apply for condonation. It was only on8 after a lapse of 3 months he made an application for condonation of shortage of attendance in the lectures. His case was considered by the Principal of the College. The Principal refused to grant condonation inasmuch as after deducting the admissible absence of 25%, the Principal was entitled to condone only a further absence of 10% under Regulation 4.1 of Chapter 4 of the Academic Regulations of the College. The Principal felt that after deducting 25%, the absence of the respondent was in excess of the discretionary percentage of 10% and therefore the respondent could not be granted condonationThe respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court questioning the rejection of condonation of excess absence. The same was allowed by the Division Bench on the ground that the petitioner(respondent herein)had good academic record from the first semester to the seventh semester and that shortage occurred in the sixth semester and that too because the respondent was to go to Delhi for appearing in examination/interview for his better prospects after informing the Training and Placement Officer. The Court noticed that the respondent had informed the Training and Placement Officer, though he had not specifically applied for condonation to the said officer and felt that the respondent was within the permissible level of absence. The writ petition was allowed. The High Court directed that the result of the examination be declared. It further directed the Principal to consider the case of the respondent for condonation of shortage in lectures to the extent of 12% (even though it was in excess of 10%) and that the shortage should be condoned by the Principal. The Principal was to pass an order within four weeks and thereafter the result of the respondents papers in Digital Signal of the eighth semester was to be declared. It was also stated that this decision was being rendered in the peculiar facts of the case and would not be a precedent in other cases where shortage in lectures would exceed 10% in addition to 25%.

Reasoning: On the facts, we find that out of 46 lectures in the semester, the respondent had attended only 29 lectures. Giving him the benefit of deduction of 25%, he should have attended 34.5 lectures i.e. 35 lecturesIn our view, Chapter 4 does not give any scope for condonation in excess of 10% after giving the benefit of 25%In the present case, the respondent did not make any application in the prescribed pro forma. Therefore, it is not possible to say whether his case comes within the contingencies mentioned in Regulation 4.2. It is, no doubt, stated that the respondent has gone to Delhi to appear in the examination/ interview, but it is not clear whether that was an examination/interview held by a government organization/public limited company. In any event, admittedly, after deducting admissible 25% exemption, further absence of the respondent comes to 11% which is more than the permissible discretionary percentage granted to the Principal. Therefore, the Principal was right in saying that he had no power to condone the absence in excess of 10%, in addition to 25%We are, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court fell into an error in permitting condonation of absence beyond 10%, in addition to 25%