Ms. Manju Rani vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors
2011 Latest Caselaw 1873 Del

           *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                    Date of decision: 30th March, 2011

+                         WP(C) NO.3323/2010

MS. MANJU RANI                                         ..... Petitioner
                          Through:      Mr. Ashok Upadhayay, Advocate

                                     Versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS                  ..... Respondents
                  Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat with Ms. Latika
                           Choudhary   and     Ms.     Urvashi,
                           Advocates.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.     Whether reporters of Local papers may             No
       be allowed to see the judgment?

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, in July 2009 was admitted in the two year diploma

for Elementary Teacher Education (ETE) Course in the respondent no.3

District Institute of Education and Training (DIET) affiliated to the

respondent no.2 State Council of Educational Research and Training

(SCERT). The syllabus of the said course comprises of theoretical work /

school experience / assignment / workshops and practical works. The

School Experience Programme (SEP) is of a one full term of the course

and is conducted from October to December each year. The students of

the said course are required to attend 85% of the theory classes and 100%

of the SEP and are, under the rules of the respondent, not entitled to

appear in the examination or to be promoted from the first to the second

year unless have the said minimum attendance. Relaxation of 5% can be

granted by the Principal and of 10% by the Director SCERT on medical

ground or extraordinary circumstances.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that she is a National Level Player of

Netball and has represented the State of Haryana in the said sport and has

been participating in various tournaments; that she attended 61% of her

classes in the first year and appeared in the internal examinations held

between 19th April, 2010 till 30th April, 2010. Upon being denied the

admit card for the first year end term examination scheduled to commence

from 13th May, 2010 for the reason of being short attendance, the present

writ petition was filed to issue mandamus to the respondents to allow her

to appear in the first year end term examination.

3. This petition came up before this Court first on 13th May, 2010

when while issuing notice thereof, as an interim measure and without

creating any special equities in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner was

permitted to appear in the first year end term examination on the condition

that her result shall be kept in a sealed cover.

4. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit in which it is reiterated

that under the Rules of the respondent a student is not allowed to sit in the

examination if has less than 85% attendance in SEP even after relaxation.

It is pleaded that the course being a professional one, insistence on

attendance is a must. It is further pleaded that the petitioner has only 75%

attendance in theory classes and 71% attendance in SEP and thus even if

her case were to be considered for relaxation, she does not make the mark.

It is yet further pleaded that the petitioner never informed the respondent

of her participation in any sport and only upon being stopped from taking

the examination produced a letter from the Haryana Netball Association.

5. On 17th January, 2011 the counsel for the petitioner was directed to

inform the Court the performance of the petitioner in the Commonwealth

Games, 2010 in which she claimed to have participated. Direction was

also made to disclose the result of the examination undertaken by the

petitioner under interim orders of this Court.

6. It was informed on the next date that the petitioner had not secured

any medal in the Commonwealth Games and result of the examination

undertaken by the petitioner under interim orders in this petition was

produced in a sealed cover. The petitioner is shown to have passed the

first year end term examination.

7. Attention of the counsel for the petitioner has been invited to the

Maharishi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur JT 2010 (7) SC 179

laying down that no mandamus can be issued to an Educational Institute

to act in contravention of the rules. Once the rules require the minimum

attendance for appearance in the examination or for promotion and the

petitioner admittedly not making the said mark, no mandamus as sought

can be issued. Attention of the counsel for the petitioner was also invited

to the judgment dated 10th January, 2011 of the Division Bench of this

Court in LPA 662/2010 titled University of Delhi Vs. Vandana Kandari

laying down that exemption from attendance on the ground of maternity

leave also cannot be allowed.

8. The counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has

during the pendency of this petition also attended the classes of the second

year and would now end up wasting two years if made to repeat the first

year. However, the petitioner, notwithstanding the clarity in law, if

chooses to prefer the petition such risks are inherent.

9. The position qua attendance is now no longer res integra.

Reference in this regard may also be made to the judgment of this Court

in Vibhor Anand v Vice Chancellor, GGSIPU MANU/DE/3698/2010

whereagainst LPA No.191/2011 was also dismissed vide judgment dated

3rd March, 2011 and to Gagandeep Kaur v. GNCTD

MANU/DE/3049/2010.

10. Accordingly, no merit is found in this petition. The same is

dismissed. The examination undertaken by the petitioner under interim

orders of this Court is accordingly cancelled. No order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) March 30, 2011/M