Delhi High Court
Pratyush Narnawre vs Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha ... on 1 March, 2018
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1993/2018 & CM No.8202/2018
PRATYUSH NARNAWRE ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Lal Singh Thakur, Mr.Sudhir
Tewatia, Mr.R.K. Solanki &
Mr.Prabhas, Advs. with petitioner in
person.
versus
GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY & ANR
..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Anita Sahani, Adv. for R-1 & 2.
+ W.P.(C) 1994/2018& CM No.8204/2018
ALISHA GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Lal Singh Thakur, Mr.Sudhir
Tewatia, Mr.R.K. Solanki &
Mr.Prabhas, Advs. with petitioner in
person.
versus
GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY & ANR
..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Anita Sahani, Adv. for R-1 & 2.
+ W.P.(C) 1995/2018& CM No.8206/2018
PARTH SALUJA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Lal Singh Thakur, Mr.Sudhir
Tewatia, Mr.R.K. Solanki &
Mr.Prabhas, Advs. with petitioner in
person.
versus
GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY & ANR
..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Anita Sahani, Adv. for R-1 & 2.
+ W.P.(C) 1996/2018& CM No.8208/2018
PHUNTSOG DOLKAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Lal Singh Thakur, Mr.Sudhir
Tewatia, Mr.R.K. Solanki &
Mr.Prabhas, Advs. with petitioner in
person.
versus
GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY & ANR
..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Anita Sahani, Adv. for R-1 & 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
REKHA PALLI, J (ORAL)
1. The petitioners in these four petitions are the students of the
University School of Biotechnology, i.e. respondent No.2 affiliated to
the respondent No.1-university which school is admittedly situated in
the Main Campus of the respondent No.1 itself. They have
approached this Court inter alia praying for a direction to quash the
order dated 30.01.2018, whereby they have been detained in the end
term Examination, of November-December 2017, due to shortage of
their attendance in the Semester of August-November, 2017.
2. In all the 4 petitions, the petitioners are students of B.Tech.
(Biotechnology) and had taken admission in the 5 th semester in
August, 2017 and had been regularly attending the classes being held
in the respondent No.2. The petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.1995/2018
and 1996/2018 claim to have missed college due to their involvement
in extra-curricular activities while the petitioners in W.P.(C)
Nos.1993/2018 and 1994/2018 claim that they had to miss college for
a few days due to illness and other unavoidable reasons.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that at the end of
the 5th semester, all the petitioners were issued admit cards by the
respondent and had duly appeared in the examination of the 5 th
semester, which had commenced from 13.11.2017 itself. He further
points out that though on 09.11.2017, a general notice was issued
stating therein that the attendance of B.Tech. (BT) and M.Tech. (BT)
students had been finalized and displayed on the notice board as well
as sent to their e-mail addresses, the students were also informed that
in case, there was any discrepancy in their attendance, they could get
the same corrected by approaching the concerned class teacher by
10.11.2017. He further submits that this notice did not, in any
manner, state that in case of shortfall in attendance, any of the
students would be detained.
4. Mr.Thakur further submits that much after the exams had
already commenced, a notice dated 28.11.2017 was, for the first time
issued, wherein the names of the 4 petitioners were mentioned by
merely stating that they were short of requisite attendance for the End
Term Examination, 2017. He submits that this notice did not debar
the petitioners for appearing in the ongoing examination and they
were all allowed to appear in the examination which continued till
mid December, 2017. He further submits that after the petitioners had
appeared in their 5th semester examination, they were all promoted to
the 6th semester and had been regularly attending their classes of the
6th Semester from 08.01.2018 till 31.01.2018, till the impugned order
dated 30.01.2018 ordering their detention in the end-term of
examination held in November-December 2017, was handed over to
them in the evening of 31.01.2018 from which date, they have been
debarred from attending classes.
5. Mr.Thakur, submits that aggrieved by the impugned order, the
petitioners have made representations to the Vice Chancellor of the
respondent No.1-University, which have remained unanswered till
date. In these circumstances, the petitioners have approached this
Court on 28.02.2018.
6. When the matter was taken up on 28.02.2018, Ms.Sahani
appearing for the respondents was requested to get instructions.
Today, upon instructions, she submits that mere issuance of the admit
cards to the petitioners or the action of permitting them to appear in
the 5th Semester final examinations, cannot create any equity in their
favour as while issuing the notice dated 09.11.2017 informing the
students about their attendance, it had been clearly stated that their
appearance in the practical examination was purely provisional
subject to finalization of attendance till 10.11.2017.
7. Ms.Sahani, further submits that the petitioners were very much
aware that their attendance was short which is evident from the fact
that on 29.11.2017 itself, they had approached the Vice Chancellor of
respondent No.1-University pointing out that they were short of the
requisite attendance by a very meagre margin leading to possibility of
the loss of a whole academic year. She draws my attention to letter
dated 29.11.2017 written by the petitioners in support of her
contention that the petitioners were aware that they would be detained
due to shortage of attendance. The letter dated 29.11.2017, on which
reliance has been made by the learned counsel for the parties reads
reads as under:-
"The Vice Chancellor
Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Dwarka
Sector 16-C
New Delhi (110078)
29th November, 2017
Subject: Plea against detention due to shortage of
attendance.
Sir,
This is to bring to your notice that five students of
university school of biotechnology, (5th semester) are
following short of the requisite attendance by a very
meagre margin leading to a possibility of the loss of a
whole academic year which will have serious
implications on our career as well as our mental health.
The different reasons behind our absence were financial
crisis, health issues & involvement in a number of co-
curricular activities throughout the semester. All these
situations were extremely unavoidable.
We humbly request you to consider our sensitive case as
the situation now demands immediate intervention by
higher authorities. Kindly find the essential details of all
the five students attached with this application. Sir, we
will ensure that such a situation will not arise in the
future.
We shall always remain indebted to you."
8. Ms.Sahani also draws my attention to Para 9.3 of the Ordinance
11-'Conduct and Evaluation of examinations for programmes leading
to all Bachelor's/Master's Degrees and Under-Graduate/ Post-
Graduate Diplomas following Semester System' in support of her plea
that the petitioners were always aware that in case it is subsequently
found that any detained student had appeared in the examination, his
result will be treated as null and void. Ms.Ṣahani also draws my
attention to Para 9.1 of the said ordinance to contend that under no
condition, a student who has an aggregate attendance of less than 70%
in a semester can be allowed to appear in the semester term end
examination. She submits that once it is an admitted case of the
petitioners that they were all having attendance less than 70%, the
shortfall in their attendance could not be condoned in any manner and
therefore, they had no right to appear in the semester term end
examination. In these circumstances, she submits that the petitions
are liable to be dismissed and the petitioners are not entitled to any
interim relief of whatsoever kind.
9. At this stage, it may be appropriate to refer to Para 9.1 and 9.3
of the Ordinance which reads as under:-
"9.1 For programmes other than Bachelor of Education
(B.Ed.) and Master of Education (M.E.d.):-
A student shall be required to have a minimum
attendance of 75 % in the aggregate of all the course
taken together in a semester, provided that the Dena of
the Scholl in case of University Schools and
Principal/Director in case of University
maintained/affiliated institutes may condone attendance
shortage upto 5% for individual student for reasons to be
recorded. However, under no condition, a student who
has an aggregate attendance of less than 70% in a
semester shall be allowed to appear in the semester terms
end examination.
For B.Ed and M.Ed programmes:
The minimum attendance of B.Ed students shall be
80% for all course work and practicum, and 90% for
school internship.
The minimum attendance of M.Ed. students shall
be 80% for Theory Courses and Practicum, and 90% for
field attachment.
9.3 In case any detained student appears in the
semester/supplementary term end examination, his/her
result shall be treated as null and void."
10. Having examined the rival contentions of the parties, I find that
a glaring and most disturbing fact which emerges from the record, is
that even though the respondents could have perhaps at the
appropriate time in November 2017, initiated action to detain the
petitioners, who were not meeting the criteria of requisite attendance
and directing them not to appear in the examinations held in
November-December 2017, but the admitted fact is that till the
passing of the impugned order dated 30.01.2018, no order was ever
passed detaining the petitioners or directing them not to appear in the
examination and all of them were duly and without any demur
permitted to appear in the Examination. I find no merit in the
submission of learned counsel for the respondents that only because
the notice dated 09.11.2017 itself clarified that the appearance in the
practical exam was purely provisional and was subject to finalization
of attendance on 10.11.2017, the permission granted to them to appear
in all the subsequent examinations, which continued till mid
December 2017, was also provisional specially since, there is no
denial to the fact that the examination had started only on 13.11.2017
i.e. after the date mentioned in the said notice. In my view, there was
no reason for the petitioners to believe that they had been allowed to
appear in the examination only provisionaly. In case, the respondents
wanted to ensure that the appearance of the examination of the
petitioners was only provisional, they had to abide by their own
circular, which clearly stated that the finalization of the attendance
would be done by 10.11.2017 and ought not to have permitted the
petitioners to appear in the 5th semester examinations held in
November-December 2017 or ought to have atleast informed them
that the permission to appear in the examination was in any way
provisional.
11. It also emerges that not only the petitioners were admittedly
never detained in the 5th semester and were permitted to appear in the
final examinations of the 5th semester, without any demur but were
also allowed to attend classes of the 6th semester for almost one
month. In these circumstances, upon completion of pleadings, the
question whether the respondents had the power to pass any detention
order with retrospective effect only by relying on Para 9.3 of the
Ordinance, would need to be decided.
12. Issue notice. Ms.Sahani, Advocate accepts notice for the
respondent Nos.1 and 2 and seeks four weeks time to file the counter
affidavit. Time prayed for is granted. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be
filed within two weeks thereafter.
13. In my considered view, the petitioners have been able to make
out a prima facie case and irreparable loss and damage would be
caused to them and in case the operation of the impugned order dated
30.01.2018 passed by the respondent is not stayed, it would lead to
loss of an entire academic year of the petitioners ,
14. Accordingly, the operation of the impugned order dated
30.01.2018 is stayed and the respondents are directed to permit all the
petitioners to appear in the classes and the ensuing exams of the 6 th
semester. Needless to state that the observations in this order are only
prima facie and the interim directions would remain subject to
outcome of the present petitions.
15. List on 17.05.2018.
16. Dasti under the signatures of Court Master.
(REKHA PALLI)
JUDGE
MARCH 01, 2018
gm
