Why were facts on allowing Students with 60% attendance to take Exams not disclosed: HC to College

The High Court of Bombay has directed Mithibai College to explain why the facts pertaining to allowing students with 60 per cent attendance to appear for the semester 4 exams were not revealed to the Court in its affidavit filed on June 18. The institute had filed the affidavit in response to a petition of a student with 58.9 per cent attendance.

The student had sought directions to the college to declare her eligible for the exams, as the institute had allowed students with 60 per cent, through a March 6 decision, to appear for exams & also promoted them. As the college had failed to disclose the fact in its affidavit, the HC said it was granting time to the institute to take adequate steps.

A division bench of Justices SJ Kathawalla & NR Borkar, while hearing a plea filed by the student through video conferencing on Friday, was informed by Lawyer Harshad Bhadbhade, that though the rules had stipulated 75 per cent overall attendance, the college had permitted students with 60 per cent attendance to appear for the exams. Bhadbhade submitted that his client had an attendance of 58.9 per cent & hence she should also be treated on the same lines as students with 60 per cent.

When the HC asked the college why the fact that students with 60 per cent attendance could appear for exams had not been disclosed in the June 18 affidavit, institute principal Rajpal Hande was unable to justify the reason.

The June 18 affidavit had said, “Student/s who secure less than 75% of attendance had to take re-admission in the same semester in the subsequent academic year”. The affidavit signed by Hande had also denied that the college had permitted, “….. students having attendance of 59 per cent to appear in the examination as allegedly stated …… or at all”.

However, in the written submissions filed by the college on June 25, it admitted that students with 60 per cent attendance had been allowed to appear for the exams & promoted too. On being questioned when the decision was taken, Hande said that it was taken on March 6.

In light of these submissions, Kathawalla questioned as to why the March 6 decision was not mentioned in the June 18 affidavit, to which the college submitted that it had been missed out as instructions while preparing the affidavit were given on telephone. Kathawalla observed, “There is no question of any fact being left out because of the alleged telephonic instructions, because statements are made in the said affidavit which are completely contrary to the facts now disclosed, & in any event the principal has signed every page of the said affidavit.”

The bench further observed, “Keeping in view that the matter involves serious issues pertaining to attendance discipline, which the college wants to assert, & also as the same involves the future of several students, we are granting time to the college to take adequate steps in the matter.” The petition has been posted for hearing on June Monday.

Source Link