Surbhi Gupta vs Ggsip University & Ors
2010 Latest Caselaw 4275 Del

              *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                       Date of decision: 14th September, 2010.

+                           W.P.(C) No.5656/2010
%

         SURBHI GUPTA                                              ..... Petitioner
                                   Through:       Mr. Sitab Ali Chaudhary and
                                                  Mr. R. K. Saini, Advocates.

                            `      Versus

         GGSIP UNIVERSITY & ORS                                ..... Respondents
                          Through:                Mr. O. P. Saxena, Advocate.

CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may
         be allowed to see the judgment?                       No

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?                No

3.       Whether the judgment should be reported               No
         in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petitioner, a student of second semester of BA LLB (Hons.)

course of the respondent University and having been found by the

University to be short of attendance, along with another student filed W.P.

No. 3163/2010 for being permitted to take the second semester end term

examination commencing from 10th May, 2010 and also seeking a

mandamus commanding the University to upon her so clearing the

examination promote her to the third semester and allow her to attend the

classes thereof. This Court vide order dated 11 th May, 2010 in the said writ

petition directed the respondent University to issue the necessary admit card

to the petitioner to appear in the second semester end-term examination,

subject to the final decision of the petition and on condition that the same

shall not create any equities in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner being

dissatisfied with the conduct of the earlier writ petition by her co-petitioner,

on 19th August, 2010 was permitted to withdraw from W.P.(C)

No.3163/2010 and to institute the present petition.

2. The respondent University had refused to issue admit card to the

petitioner for the examination aforesaid for the reason of the petitioner

failing to meet the prescribed attendance criteria. It is the case of the

respondent University that as per its Rules and Regulations, the petitioner

was required to have 75% attendance but had only 51.5% attendance.

3. The petitioner claims that as per the Rules and Regulations of the

respondent University, she is entitled to the attendance for the days when

she actually participated in any extra-curricular activity and also to

attendance of two days for travel for each participation. She states that she

had participated in a debate competition at Kirori Mal College held between

10th to 13th February, 2010 and in another debate competition held at Pilani,

Haryana between 10th to 15th March, 2010. She further claims to have

suffered from ill health in the month of March, 2010 and having been

advised 5-6 days of rest and owing whereto also she could not attend the

classes. Her case is that if the benefit on the aforesaid counts be given to

her, she would fulfill the attendance criteria.

4. The respondent University in its counter affidavit has stated that the

petitioner attended 148 out of 287 lectures held leading to the percentage of

classes attended being 51.5%; it is admitted that the petitioner has

participated in extra-curricular activities but it is stated that the maximum

benefit thereof i.e. 30 attendance can be given to the petitioner and which

benefit also if given takes the attendance of the petitioner to 62% only which

also would fall short of the requirement of 75%. It is further pleaded that

the Vice-chancellor has the discretion to waive attendance in appropriate

cases only up to 5% and the petitioner having short fall in attendance of

much more has been rightly detained.

5. The counsel for the petitioner has contended that if the credit of 30

attendance is given to the petitioner as averred in the counter affidavit of the

respondent University it takes the attendance of the petitioner to 178 out of

287 leaving her short of about 22 classes only from the required benchmark

of 200 classes. It is contended that on the basis of 05 classes in a day, the

said deficiency also would be fulfilled if her medical leave for 5-6 days is

included.

6. On the basis of the total lectures held being 287, the petitioner to meet

the 75% attendance was required to attend 215 classes. The petitioner in

fact attended 148 classes and with the credit of 30 classes given by the

respondent University, would have attended 178 classes. Even if maximum

06 days of medical leave were to be given to the petitioner i.e. benefit of 30

classes, the same would still take the number of lectures attended by the

petitioner to 208 leaving the petitioner short of the requisite mark of 215.

However, the petitioner appears to be relying on the 5% discretion of the

Vice-Chancellor which equates to about 14 lectures.

7. The counsel for the respondent University has argued that the

petitioner did not submit any medical certificate or take any leave on

account of illness. I have inquired from the counsel for the respondent

University as to whether the Rules of the respondent University for

attendance make any provision for obtaining medical leave or for having the

same sanctioned from the University. The counsel states that there is no

provision for the same. It is further stated that since the minimum required

attendance is 75% only, the absence, if any on account of medical reasons

has to be adjusted against the balance 25% and there is no special rule for

credit of leave on account of health/medical problems being given.

8. I do not find any basis for the contention aforesaid of the respondent

University. Nothing has been shown that no credit on account of

medical/health reasons is to be given. There are no rules in respect to the

same.

9. Though I have recently in W.P.(C) No.3129/2010 titled Choudhary

Ali Zia Kabir Vs. GGSIP University decided on 18th August, 2010 held that

Rules qua attendance have to be strictly complied with and have also held

that the students have no right to challenge the attendance record or to

demand a hearing in this regard, but the aspect of absence on account of

medical/health reasons was not discussed therein. However, since the

petitioner, to be able to make requisite mark in the present case would also

require the exercise of discretion qua 5% attendance vested in the Vice-

Chancellor, it is deemed expedient to dispose of this writ petition by

directing the Vice-Chancellor or other concerned authority of the respondent

University to consider the matter of whether the petitioner is entitled to any

credit for medical/health reasons and whether the petitioner is entitled to

waiver of 5% attendance and to take the decision thereon. Considering that

the third semester classes have already begun, the University authorities are

requested to take said decision within one week from today. However if the

decision is in favour of the petitioner, the result of the petitioner of the

examination taken by her under the interim order of this Court would be

declared and if the petitioner has cleared the same she would be promoted to

the 3rd term and allowed to attend the classes thereof. Needless to state that

if the petitioner remains aggrieved by the decision of the Vice-Chancellor,

she would have her remedies in law.

With the aforesaid directions the petition is disposed of. No order as

to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) 14th September, 2010 cl..