* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2811/2012
Decided on: 15.05.2012
IN THE MATTER OF
DHARMENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. N.S. Dalal, Advocate
versus
GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY AND ANR
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukul Talwar, Advocate with
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate for R-1/GGSIPU.
Mr. Arun Gupta, Advocate for R-2/Institute.
CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for directions to the respondent No.1/University to allow him to appear in the 6th semester examinations of the BBA course, which are to commence from 16.05.2012.
2. On the last date of hearing, counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner was confined to bed for the period from 16.01.2012 to 28.01.2012 and from 13.03.2012 to 23.03.2012 and, therefore, he had submitted his medical certificates to the respondent W.P.(C) 2811/2012 Page 1 of 5 No.2/Institute, seeking relaxation of attendance by exclusion of the said period. It was further submitted that the petitioner had also made representations before the respondent No.1/University with a request that he may be permitted to appear in the 6 th semester examinations upon being granted relaxation of attendance. A perusal of the letter dated 23.04.2012 enclosed as Annexure P-3 to the writ petition, reveals that there was an endorsement made by the respondent No.2/Institute to the effect that the petitioner had been detained due to shortage of attendance as per the University norms and that the Institute had no objection if the student was allowed to appear for the examinations if dispensation was given. In another representation dated 27.04.2012 addressed by the petitioner to the respondent No.1/University, again, respondent No.2/Institute had made an endorsement to the effect that the Institute had no objection if the University permits such a relaxation.
3. Counsel for the respondent No.1/University, who had appeared on advance copy earlier, had submitted that as per Clause 9 of Ordinance 11 of the University's Ordinance, a minimum attendance of 75% was prescribed with a relaxation upto 5% thereon, which could be given by the Director/Principal of the concerned Institute. He had, therefore, stated that it was for the respondent No.2/Institute to exercise its discretion and that the respondent No.1/University had no role to play as regards the grant of W.P.(C) 2811/2012 Page 2 of 5 relaxation to the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid submission made by the counsel for the respondent No.1/University, it was deemed appropriate to issue notice to the respondent No.2/Lingaya's Lalita Devi Institute of Management and Science to get its response.
4. Pursuant to the aforesaid notice, appearance is entered on behalf of the respondent No.2/Institute. Counsel for the respondent No.2/Institute states that the attendance of the petitioner in the 6 th semester is abysmally low at 27% and, therefore, no relaxation can be granted by the Institute to permit him to appear in the 6th semester examinations of the BBA course. It is further submitted by learned counsel that the Institute had prepared a list of attendance of all the examinees and had forwarded it to the respondent No.1/University and the University was apprised of the names of students, including the petitioner whose attendance was below the prescribed minimum attendance of 75%.
5. The aforesaid position is, however, disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner, who asserts that the attendance of the petitioner was 45%. However, no document has been placed on record by the petitioner to substantiate the aforesaid submission, nor has any such averment made by the petitioner in the writ petition.
6. As per Clause 9 of Ordinance 11, a student is undoubtedly required to have a minimum attendance of 75% or more in the aggregate of W.P.(C) 2811/2012 Page 3 of 5 all the courses taken together in a semester. It has been further prescribed that the Principal/Director may condone the attendance shortage upto 5% for an individual student for reasons to be recorded, but under no condition, a student with an aggregate attendance of less than 70% in a semester would be allowed to appear in the semester end examination.
7. In view of the aforesaid provision, it is irrelevant whether the attendance of the petitioner is 45% as claimed by the counsel for the petitioner, or 27% as claimed by the counsel for the respondent No.2/Institute for the reason that the result would be the same, which is that the petitioner would have to be detained by the respondent No.2/Institute in the light of the prescription in Clause 9 of Ordinance 11.
8. What is surprising is that in the teeth of the aforesaid provision which is well within the knowledge of the respondent No.2/Institute, it had proceeded to make endorsements on letters dated 23.04.2011 and 27.04.2012 addressed by the petitioner to the respondent No.1/University as noted above, thus trying to pass on the buck to the University, instead of taking a clear stand and turning down the request of the petitioner for relaxation on the ground that his attendance was far below the minimum attendance as prescribed under the Ordinance. The aforesaid conduct of the respondent No.2/Institute is to be frowned upon as it has unnecessarily raised false hopes in the heart of the petitioner, who has relied upon the W.P.(C) 2811/2012 Page 4 of 5 aforesaid notings of the respondent No.2/Institute made in the letters addressed by him to the University and basing his case on them, and in expectation of entitlement to some relief from the Court, has filed the present petition.
9. While dismissing the present petition as being devoid of merits, the respondent No.2/Institute is cautioned to be more careful in future when such representations are received from students, seeking relaxation of attendance norms, and take a clear and categorical stand as per law, so that they do not remain in the dark and later on, their hopes are not dashed to the ground.
10. The petition is disposed of while leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(HIMA KOHLI)
MAY 15, 2012 JUDGE
rkb
W.P.(C) 2811/2012 Page 5 of 5