Delhi High Court
Dharmender Singh vs Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha ... on 15 May, 2012
Author: Hima Kohli
* 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
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
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
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
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
