Delhi High Court
Gargi Maheshwari vs National Institute Of Fashion ... on 31 May, 2010
Author: Kailash Gambhir
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment reserved on: 24.05.2010
Judgment delivered on: 31.5.2010
W.P.(C) No. 569/2010
Kangana Modi ......Petitioner
and
W.P.(C) No. 2264/2010
Kusum ......Petitioner
and
W.P.(C) No. 2267/2010
Ritika Jain ......Petitioner
And
W.P.(C) No.2269/2010
Priyanka Aggarwal ......Petitioner
and
W.P.(C) No. 569/2010 Page 1 of 27
W.P.(C) No.2270/2010
Gargi Maheshwari ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Gagan Chhabra with Mr.
Naveen Gaur and Mr. Vivek
Verma
Versus
National Institute of Fashion Technology
& Anr. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Vivek Tankha, ASG with
Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija with Mr.
Philemon Nongbi for respondent No.
1.
Mr. Anuij Aggarwal with Mr. Gaurav
Khanna for respondent No. 2/UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest? Yes
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
*
1. This common order shall dispose of a batch of five writ
petitions bearing no. WP (C) Nos. 569/2010, 2264/2010,
2267/2010, 2269/2010 and W.P.(C) No. 2270/2010, filed by the
petitioners who are students of different courses in National
Institute of Fashion Technology, New Delhi. All these petitions
raise a common question as all these petitioners were detained
from appearing in their respective semester examinations on
account of shortfall of their attendance. Out of these five cases,
the petitioner in W.P.(C) No 569/2010 and W.P.(C) No.
2264/2010 seek relaxation in the shortfall of attendance on
medical grounds. In W.P. (C) No. 2267/2010 and 2270/2010 the
petitioners claim condonation of shortfall of attendance on
account of reaching late in classes due to traffic congestion while
in W.P. (C) No.2269/2010 the petitioner has claimed condonation
on the ground that she could not attend classes due to the
exigency of taking care of her mother who met with an
accident.
2. Adumbrated relevant facts of each petition as per the
petitioner are as follows:
In W.P. (C) 569/2010 the petitioner is a student of IIIrd semester
of Fashion Communication and had overall attendance of 74.25%
and was short in two subjects of IT and HPOD with 64% and 63%
respectively. She remained absent from 13.11.09 to 22.11.09 due
to high fever and suspected swine flu and hence she made
representations to the Director General on 25.11.09, 1.12.09,
16.12.09, 18.12.09 but they were rejected. Subsequently she
appealed for appearing in the re-exams which were to be held in
January, 2010 vide her request letters dated 12.1.10, 19.1.10
which were also rejected.
In W.P.(C) 2264/2010 the petitioner is a student of VIIth
semester of Fashion Design and had overall attendance of 63%
and was short in two subjects of PD and Knitwear with 54% and
60% respectively. She remained absent from 20.10.09 to
30.10.09 due to typhoid and hence she made representations to
the Director General, NIFT on 20.11.09, 24.11.09 and 3.12.09
but they were rejected. Subsequently, she appealed for
appearing in the re-exams which were to be held in January,
2010 vide her letters dated 14.12.09, 14.1.10 which were also
rejected.
In W.P.(C) No. 2267/2010, the petitioner is a student of IIIrd
semester of Masters in Fashion Management and had overall
attendance of 78% and was short in two subjects of SCM & and
FBM with 55 % and 58% respectively. She could not attend the
first class on a number of days, reaching late due to traffic
congestion. She made representations to the Director General
for appearing in re-exams scheduled for January 2010 vide
letters dated 9.12.09, 11.12.09 but the same were rejected.
In W.P. (C) No. 2269/2010, the petitioner is a student of IIIrd
semester of Masters in Fashion Management and had overall
attendance of 72% and was short in two subjects of FBM and
FMS with 58 % and 62% respectively. She had shortfall in
attendance as she had to take care of her ailing mother who had
suffered an accidental fall. She made representations on
27.11.09, 12.12.09 and her representation for attending the
cluster program which were rejected. She then made
representations for appearing in the re-exams to be held from
January, 2010 which was rejected vide letter dated 22.1.10. Her
grievance is also that her attendance in the subject of fashion
lifestyle& product appreciation which was 91% but was not
taken into account while calculating the attendance.
In W.P. (C) No. 2270/2010, the petitioner is a student of IIIrd
semester of Masters in Fashion Management and had overall
attendance of 79% and was short in the subject of Fashion
marketing with 61%. She could not attend the first class on a
number of days, reaching late due to traffic congestion on the
Delhi-U.P border and she made representations on
21.11.09,12.12.09,13.1.10 and 18.1.10 which were rejected and
also for appearing in re-exams scheduled for January 2010 on
28.11.09 which was rejected vide letter dated 22.1.10.
3. As per the attendance policy of the respondent institute the
minimum requirement is an overall attendance of 75% and 65% in
each subject to appear in the end semester examinations and the
petitioners unable to fulfill the same, were not allowed to appear
in the examination commencing from 2.12.09 vide impugned
letter dated 14.12.09. The appeal filed by these petitioners to
appear in the re-exams scheduled for January, 2010 was also
rejected vide impugned letter dated 22.01.10. Feeling aggrieved
with the same, the petitioners have approached this court.
4. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that so far the writ
petition Nos. 569/2010, 2264/2010 are concerned, the case of the
petitioners deserves consideration by the respondent as they
could not attend some of the classes due to medical exigencies.
The contention of counsel for the petitioner was that so far
Kangana Modi (in W.P.(C) No.569/2010) is concerned, she could
not attend the classes between 13th November, 2009 to 22nd
November, 2009 on account of high fever and suspected swine
flu. Counsel further submitted that before the said period of
illness, the petitioner had attended over 78% classes in aggregate
and 70% in each subject. Counsel thus submitted that there was a
shortfall of just 2 lectures, otherwise she would have fulfilled the
required criteria.
5. As regards the petitioner Kusum (in W.P.(C) No.2264/2010)
is concerned, the contention of counsel for the petitioner was that
she could not attend the classes from 20 th October, 2009 to 30th
October, 2009 on account of suffering from typhoid. Counsel
submitted that prior to the said period, the petitioner had been
quite regular in attending the classes and her overall attendance
was 80% in aggregate and more than 70% subjectwise. Counsel
further submitted that if the said period of typhoid is not taken
into consideration then the petitioner Kusum fulfilled the required
criteria of attendance.
6. So far the students in W.P.(C) Nos.2270/2010, 2269/2010
and 2267/2010 are concerned, counsel submitted that all these
students are the students of post graduate course i.e. Master of
Fashion Management and were quite regular in attending the
classes. There is only shortfall of few lectures, which they could
not attend due to certain exceptional circumstances.
7. In the case of Gargi Maheshwari (in W.P. (C) No.
2270/2010), counsel submitted that she is residing in Modi Nagar
(U.P.) and was using public transport to cover a distance of 50 km
each side and on few occasions due to heavy rains she reached
late and thus was not given attendance by the concerned faculty.
Counsel further submitted that otherwise she had attended all
subsequent classes of the same day but still was not given
attendance in the first class although the teacher allowed the
other students to attend the classes.
8. As regards Priyanka Aggarwal (in W.P.(C) No.2269/2010),
counsel submitted her mother had an accidental fall in her house
due to which she remained hospitalized and bedridden for about
six months and the petitioner had to attend to her ailing mother
due to which she some times reached late by 5 or 10 minutes in
the class, but was not given attendance. Even father of the
petitioner was posted out of station i.e. at Mathura, so the
petitioner being all alone in the family was required to take care
of her ailing mother. Counsel further submitted that otherwise
the petitioner was quite regular in her classes and is a
meritorious student and was sent by the respondent to
Switzerland in a summer exchange programme.
9. Counsel for the respondent further submitted that in the
case of Gargi Maheshwari (in W.P.(C) No.2270/2010), she was
informed by the respondent that she was short of attendance in
one particular subject vide communication dated 27th November,
2009 whereas under the RTI information supplied to the father of
the petitioner it revealed that she was in fact short of attendance
in two subjects. The contention of counsel for the petitioner was
that the respondents are not maintaining the attendance records
properly and in the case of Priyanka Aggarwal (in W.P. (C) No.
2269/2010) she was also informed that she was having shortage
of attendance in two subjects while under the RTI information
supplied, it is shown she had shortage only in one subject.
10. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the case
of one student Yoonji Lee, who was having 57% attendance
subject wise but was still allowed to sit in the re-exam held in
January, 2010. The contention of counsel for the petitioner was
that the relaxation was granted to this student on medical
grounds but on the same medical ground the petitioner Kangana
Modi and Kusum were not given indulgence by the respondent.
Similarly counsel submitted that in the case of one Rishika
Jairath, who was doing a Masters Degree course and her
attendance was 58% in one subject and was granted relaxation by
the respondent on the ground that she was commuting from
Gurgaon and was not able to attend her first class due to traffic
jams. The case of one Sabeer Alam was also entertained by the
respondent who was allowed to sit in the exams although he had
also shortage of attendance in one of the subjects and the
relaxation to this candidate was given by the respondent as he
was not able to attend the classes in the said subject during the
Ramzan period.
11. Refuting the said submissions of counsel for the petitioner,
counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent in some
of the cases has allowed the students to appear in the exams in
consonance with the Students Attendance Policy. The contention
of the counsel was that under the said policy there cannot be any
compromise so far the overall attendance of a student is
concerned, which as per the policy has been laid down as 75%
overall and 65% subjectwise. Counsel thus submitted that in the
case of Yoonji Lee, she had overall 75% attendance and in the
modular course subject she had 65% attendance. So far the case
of Rishika Jairath is concerned, counsel submitted that her overall
attendance was 85%, 95%, 100% and except in one subject her
attendance fell short, therefore, she was also permitted to appear
in her exams. Counsel further submitted that in the case of
petitioner Kangana Modi, she had secured 74% attendance
overall and in the non-core subjects of HPOD & IT she had
secured 63 % and 64% attendance respectively. Counsel further
submitted that the petitioner was duly warned through
reminders sent to her on 31.8.09, 8.10.09 and 26.11.09,
reminding her to complete the shortfall of her attendance.
Counsel submitted that same is the case of Priyanka Aggarwal as
she had secured 70% overall attendance while in the two core
subjects of FBM and FMS, she had 52% & 65% respectively. In
the case of Ritika Jain although she had 77% in the overall but
in FBM, which is a core subject, she had only 52% attendance
and in the non core subject of SCM she had 52% attendance. In
the case of Gargi Maheshwari she had 78% overall attendance
but in FBM and Strat which are core subjects she had 64% and
61% attendance respectively. As regards the case of Kusum, she
had 68% overall attendance and in the non core subject of
Knitwear she had 60% attendance and in the core subject of PD
she had 59%. Counsel thus submitted that reasons given by these
candidates were not found satisfactory to grant them relaxation in
comparison to the other candidates in whose case the relaxation
was given keeping in view their attendance. Counsel further
submitted that not only these 4-5 petitioners, but there are 104
students of various centers of NIFT all over India who were
similarly placed but they were not permitted to appear in the
exams due to shortfall in attendance. Counsel further submitted
that the cases of very deserving candidates were considered that
too where they fulfilled the criteria of overall attendance and
even in the individual subjects they had high attendance and
their shortfall in one or two subjects was quite marginal.
Counsel further submitted that the respondent has applied the
attendance policy uniformly in all the centers of the respondent
and there is no malice or ill will towards any of the students.
Counsel thus submitted that so far graduate students are
concerned, they can now continue with their III semester
commencing from July 2010 and after qualifying the same they
would be entitled to appear in the IV semester commencing from
January 2011 and same in the case of post graduate students as
they would be entitled to continue the semester from July 2010.
12. In support of his arguments counsel for the respondent
placed reliance on the following judgments:
1. Director(Studies), Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Hotel Management
Nutrition & Catering Technology, Chandigarh & Ors. Vs. Vaibhav Singh
Chauhan, (2009) 1 SCC 59.
2. A.P. Christrians Medical Educational Society Vs. Govt. of Andhra
Pradesh & Anr. (1986) 2 SCC 667.
3. Central Board of Secondary Education Vs. Nikhil Gulati & Anr. 1998 (1)
SCALE 634.
13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at
considerable length and gone through the minutes of the meeting
of the Board of Governors and given my conscious consideration
to the facts of the each case and the arguments advanced by the
counsel for the parties.
14. Five petitioners have approached this Court so as to
challenge the decision of the respondent whereby the appeal of
these petitioners to seek relaxation in their shortfall of
attendance was rejected. Three students were undergoing post
graduate course i.e. Master of Fashion Management while two
others were students of Fashion Communication and Fashion
Design, which is a graduate course for a period of four years. The
exact status of these petitioners can be succinctly given as
under:-
S. Name Shortage of Overa Shortage of Overall Ground
attendance ll % attendance % as
No. subject-wise as subject- per
as per per wise as per respon
petitioner petiti respondent -dent
oner
1. Kangana HPOD-63% 74.25 HPOD-63% 74% She could not
Modi % attend classes
(Non Core) (Non Core) from 12.11.2009
(FC) - to 23.11.2009
III sem due to suspected
swine flu, as a
IT Interface- IT Interface-
result of which
64% (Non 64% (Non her attendance
Core) Core) has fallen short.
2. Kusum PD (Core) - 63% PD - 59% 68% She has been
54% (Core) suffering from
(FD) - severe back pain.
VII sem Knitwear Knitwear - She also informed
60% (Non that from 20th
(non -core) Core) October to 30th
60% October, 2009
she suffered from
Typhoid and was
on bed rest, as a
result of which
her attendance
has fallen short.
3. Ritika FBM -58% 78% FBM -52% 77% For attending
Jain (Core) (Core) classes at NIFT
she comes by
(MFM) - SCM -55% SCM -50% public transport
III sem (Non Core) (Non Core) from Ashok Vihar
(North Delhi).
Due to heavy
traffic on roads, in
few classes she
reached late and
she has been
marked absent,
as a result of
which her
attendance has
fallen short in two
subjects.
4. Priyanka FBM-58% 72% FBM-52% 70% She could not
Agarwal (Core) (Core) attend classes
because her
(MFM) - FMS-62% FMS-65% mother met with
III sem, (Core) (Core) an accident and
NIFT was bed ridden
Delhi SCM-56% for six months.
Centre (Non Core) During this period
her father being a
govt. employee
was transferred to
Agra, UP. During
this period she
had to help her
sick mother and
her younger
sister, as a result
of which her
attendance has
fallen short.
5. Gargi Strat - 61% 79% FBM -64% 78% For attending
Maheshw (Core) classes she comes
ari (Core) by public
(MFM) - Strat - 61% transport from
III sem Modinagar, U.P,
(Core) about 50 Kms
away from Delhi.
Due to heavy
traffic on roads, in
few classes she
reached late by
about 5 to 7
minutes. Though
she has attended
the class, but she
has been marked
absent, as a
result of which
her attendance
has fallen short in
two subjects.
15. Clause 4(IV) of the student attendance policy of the
respondent institute which prescribes the minimum necessary
attendance which a student is required to have in the total
sessions/classes attended by him and also in each individual
subject taught in the semester is as under:-
"4(IV) The attendance norm for a student for being allowed
to appear in the re-exams is that a student should have an
overall attendance of at least 50% during the semester."
16. The said clause 4(IV) was amended as the Academic Affairs
Committee of the respondent found that as per the said norms,
the students who fall short of attendance below the required 65%
minimum attendance in the individual subjects were not allowed
to take re-exam even in those cases where due to
unavoidable/medical reasons they were not able to meet the
required target of 65% attendance. The Academic Affairs
Committee thus amended para 4(II), para 4(IV) and the same was
replaced with the following sub-rule, which is reproduced as
under:-
"The students who have an over all minimum attendance of
the required 75% but where attendance in an individual
subject taught on a modular basis is less than the required
65% (due to medical or other unavoidable reasons) may be
allowed to write the main examinations with prior
permission, to be obtained on a case to case basis strictly on
merits, from the Director General. However, they shall be
required to submit special assignments as may be
prescribed by order within a clearly specified time frame to
make up for their attendance default. The COE of the
respective Centre after consultation with the CC of the
department will formulate the special assignments related
to the topic that the student missed out in the module and
inform the student well in time. The final result of the
student in the subject will be decided on the basis of their
cumulative performance in all aspects of the course
including the marks obtained in the special assignments. In
each such case, the Director General shall take a decision
based on merits and such decision shall be final."
17. With the introduction of the said amendment, the Director
General could give the relaxation where the attendance of the
student in individual subjects taught on a modular basis is less
than the required 65% either due to medical or other unavoidable
reasons, but with the pre-requisite of minimum overall attendance
of the required 75%. The said rule further postulates that in such
a circumstance the case of each individual student for allowing
him/her to write the main examinations would be strictly
examined on merits and in all such cases the student would be
required to submit special assignments within a specified time
frame so as to make up for their attendance. A bare reading of
the said rule evinces that there is no compromise so far the over
all minimum attendance of 75% is concerned and the relaxation
could be considered only in individual subjects that too for a
subject taught on modular basis, if a student due to certain
medical or other unavoidable reasons was not able to secure the
required attendance of 65%. The subjects which were taught on
modular basis as per the counsel for the respondent, are non-core
subjects and as per him, so far core subjects are concerned, there
cannot be any relaxation even in the individual subjects. Counsel
for the respondent has also placed on record various instances to
show that in none of the cases where the student did not meet the
required target of 75% in the over all attendance, relaxation was
granted by the respondent irrespective of the reasons advanced
by the candidate. The details of some of the students whose
appeals were considered and allowed by the respondent to
appear in the exams clearly shows that all these students met the
target of 75% or more so far the overall attendance position was
concerned and there was a shortfall in the non-core subjects
except in the case of Rishika Jairath in whose case there was a
shortfall of attendance in one of the core subjects.
18. None of the petitioners in the present case has challenged
the attendance policy of the respondent and, therefore, the case
of those petitioners who do not meet the target of securing
minimum 75% attendance in the overall subjects are not entitled
to reappear in their respective exams. The petitioners Priyanka
Agarwal, Kusum and Kangana Modi (in W.P. (C) No. 2269/10,
2264/10 and 569/10 respectively) since, they do not meet the said
target of over all attendance of 75%, therefore, they are not
entitled to reappear in their respective exams. I find merit in the
submission of counsel for the respondent that the cases of these
three students do not fall within the student attendance policy of
the respondent and any indulgence shown to them would impact
the discipline of the respondent institution. Counsel also apprised
the Court that in all, 104 students all over the NIFT centers had
been debarred from appearing in the July - December, 2009
semester end term exam/jury due to shortage of attendance and
out of these, 64 students made appeal to Director General and
only 7 students were allowed on the basis of the individual merit
of each case. Although other students are not before the Court,
but certainly they will be demoralized if these three students are
allowed to appear in the exams, even though they do not fulfill the
attendance requirements of Student Attendance Policy of the
respondents.
19. There is no royal road to education. Absenteeism has
become chronic in the present day and it has to be cured by
making the students realize that education teaches only those in
attendance. Students take admissions in various courses and they
are required to fulfill the laid down attendance norms of each
University/college or institution. No doubt that because of
youthful age, students sometimes do bunk classes or even
sometimes due to certain exigencies, medical or otherwise, are
not able to attend the classes, but for that the provision of
abstaining from 25% in over all subjects and 35% in the core
subjects has already been made by the respondent institute.
Further provision of relaxation has already been made if a
student is short of attendance in modular subject/non-core
subject if due to medical or other unavoidable reasons the student
has not been able to attend his/her classes.
The courses in the cases hand are no doubt related to Fashion but
the legal proposition as set out is similar to the case of Kiran
Kumari Vs. Delhi University & Ors in W.P. (C) No.
9143/2007 where the Hon'ble division Bench of this court was
confronted with a case where the students of LLB course in the
Delhi University, where the minimum attendance required is 66%
overall and subject wise as well, were short of attendance. This
court observed that:
"In maters relating to academics and standards of education,
the Court would show deference to the opinion of the
academicians unless a case of patent perversity is made out by
the petitioners. The present is not, however, one such case
where the requirement of the rule can be said to be so
perverse or irrational as to call for the intervention of this
Court. As a matter of fact, the minimum percentage of
lectures having been fixed at 66%, still gives to the students
freedom to miss or abstain from 34% of the such lectures.
That is a fairly large percentage of lectures which a student
may miss for a variety of reasons including sickness or such
other reasons beyond his control. No student can however
claim that apart from 34% lectures which he is entitled to miss
even without a cause the shortage to make up 66% should be
condoned if he shows good cause for the same."
The Apex court has time and again held that misplaced sympathy
should not lead to granting relief to the students in academic
matters. It would be useful to refer to the recent judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Hotel
Management, Nutrition & Catering Technology,
Chandigarh v. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan,(2009) 1 SCC 59 ,
where it observed that:
"Before parting with this case, we would like to refer to
the decisions of this Court which has repeatedly held that
the High Court should not ordinarily interfere with the
orders passed in educational matters by domestic
tribunals set up by educational institutions vide Board of
High School & Intermediate Education v. Bagleshwar
Prasad6 (vide AIR para 12), J.P. Kulshrestha (Dr.) v.
Allahabad University7 (vide SCC para 17 : AIR para 17),
Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University8 (vide
SCC para 7 : AIR para 7). We wish to reiterate the view
taken in the above decisions, and further state that the
High Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the
functioning and orders of the educational authorities
unless there is clear violation of some statutory rule or
legal principle. Also, there must be strict purity in the
examinations of educational institutions and no sympathy
or leniency should be shown to candidates who resort to
unfair means in the examinations."
Hence, on the touchstone of the above said principles, there can
be no compromise with the said conditions laid down by the
respondent in their attendance policy. Moreover it is not the case
of the petitioners that the said policy is arbitrary or irrational and
should be struck down by the Court. This Court can be
sympathetic with these students, but the sympathy and emotions
cannot override the academic standards set out in the policy of
the respondent, which the students were well versed with.
Therefore, the petitioners, namely, Priyanka Agarwal, Kusum,
Kangana Modi are thus not entitled to the grant of any kind of
relaxation in their attendance. The writ petitions of these
petitioners are accordingly dismissed.
20. So far the case of petitioners Ritika Jain and Gargi
Maheshwari are concerned, it is not in dispute between the
parties that both of them had overall attendance of more than
75%. According to the respondent, Ms. Ritika Jain secured 52% in
FBM core subject and 50% in SCM non core subject while Gargi
Maheshwari secured 64% in FBM core subject and 61% in Strat
core subject. Both these petitioners have given a ground that they
could not attend the classes in the said subjects being held up in
the traffic jams in the peak hours of the morning. The respondent
institute has already allowed Rishika Jairath, a student of FMS III
semester to appear in re-exam although she had 58% attendance
in the core subject, which is below 65%, although the stand taken
by the counsel for the respondent was that the respondent has
not allowed any relaxation to any student if there was a shortfall
of attendance below 65% in the core subject. The ground given by
Rishika Jairath was also that on couple of occasions she could not
reach to attend the first class of individual subjects as she was
commuting from Gurgaon and the faculty upon finding that in fact
she had attended subsequent classes on the same day in other
subjects, allowed her to appear in the re-exam. The position of
these two students are in no way dissimilar to Rishika Jairath as
their attendance chart in the individual subjects clearly shows
that the student was attending the other subsequent classes on
the same day, but missed the morning session beginning from
9.15 a.m. till 11.15 a.m. on being late. Although these students
did remain absent throughout the day on some occasions and did
not attend even a single class on those days, but certainly if these
students are given the benefit of not attending the morning
session due to traffic congestion for those days when they had
attended the remaining classes on the same day, then certainly
they can make up the shortfall of the attendance to be entitled to
reappear in their said exams. These two petitioners are thus
entitled to reappear in their exams of December, 2009 of III
semester of MFM on parity with the case of Rishika Jairath and,
therefore, the respondent is directed to hold the examination for
them within a period of 20 days from the date of this order.
21. With the said directions, these petitions are disposed of.
May 31, 2010 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
rkr
