SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Pat) 435

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Anjani Kumar Sharan, J.
Shubham Kumar Son of Chitranjan Kumar and ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The Vice Chancellor, Bihar Engineering University and ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3571 of 2024
Decided On : 07-03-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Hari Shankar Roy, Adv. Mr. Akash Shankar, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Satyam Shivam Sundaram, Adv., Mr. Ankit, Adv., Mr. Chandra Shekhar Kr. Singh, Adv.

Minimum attendance of 75% is mandatory for examination eligibility; Article 14 does not apply to perpetuate illegality.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Education Regulations - Minimum attendance requirement of 75% for examination eligibility - Petitioners, students of engineering colleges, challenged their debarment from examinations due to low attendance, claiming discrimination against other students allowed to appear despite similar attendance issues. (Paras 4, 5, 8, 21)

(B) Discretionary Power - The principal has the authority to condone attendance shortages up to 15% for medical reasons, but such discretion was not exercised in the petitioners' cases due to insufficient attendance. (Paras 21)

(C) Judicial Precedent - The court referenced prior judgments regarding attendance and student rights, emphasizing the importance of adherence to educational regulations. (Paras 17, 19)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners debarred from examinations due to attendance below 75%, despite claims of medical issues and unfair treatment compared to other students. (Paras 5, 6, 8)

Findings of Court:
The petitioners' attendance was below the mandated percentage, and no evidence of discrimination was found in their treatment compared to other students. (Paras 21)

Issues: Whether the petitioners were unfairly treated compared to peers regarding examination eligibility and whether the college acted within its rights. (Paras 4, 21)

Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the college's attendance policy, stating that Article 14 does not apply to perpetuate illegality or grant benefits based on wrongful actions in other cases. (Paras 19, 21)

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Anjani Kumar Sharan, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The Interlocutory Application No.01 of 2024 has been filed on behalf of the petitioners to add some more reliefs in para-1 of the main writ petition.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and for the reasons stated in the interlocutory application, the interlocutory application no. 01 of 2024 is allowed and the reliefs prayed in this interlocutory application shall also be treated as a part of the relief prayed in the main writ petition.

4. This writ petition has been filed for seeking following reliefs:

“i. For issuance of an appropriate order, direction, observation preferably in the nature of a writ of Mandamus for directing the respondents for conducting re-examination of second semester for academic year of 2021-22, of petitioner, who are students of computer science and engineering branch of Darbhanga college of Engineering, Darbhanga of session 2022-2026.

ii. For further direction of an appropriate order commanding the Writ Preferably in the nature of mandamus for directing the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner sympathetically, understanding and compatibility for condoning the 75% of attendance as require for appearance in examination in the light of the fact that he was facing unfortune special circumstances during his academic period.

iii. For additional issuance of an appropriate order for directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to allow and appear in case the respondents conduct the same.

iv. For any other relief or reliefs to which the petitioner may be found entitled in the given factual matrix for the present case.

v. For issuance of an appropriate writ order direction to declare the Annexure – D arbitrary and discriminatory as students having attendance lesser to the petitioner in the said college but of Junior Batch (Session 2022-26) has been allowed to fill up form and attend in the end examination and result also been published.

vi For issuance of an appropriate writ order direction that not arranging special examination for the petitioner against the actions of the respondent themselves as in case of other students who have declared failed have been allowed to face special examination through there is no rule regulation guidelines in this respect.

vii. For issuance of an appropriate writ order direction to declare that under the Jurisdiction of same University but different colleges have no authority to adopt different yard stick for debarring a student from appearing in examination on the basis of lesser percent attendance.”

5. The brief facts of the case is that petitioner no. 1 namely Shubham Kumar is a student of B.Tech Computer Science Engineering College (Session 2021-2025) of Rashtrakavi Ramdhari Singh College of Engineering, Begusarai affiliated by AKU and, thereafter, by and under Bihar Engineering University, Patna, and, the Petitioner No. 2, namely, Shashikesh Kumar is the student of B.Tech Civil Engineering (Session 2022-26) of Darbhanga College of Engineering, Darbhanga, falling under the jurisdiction of Bihar Engineering University, Patna. The college authority issued an official order whereby a direction has been issued by that the students whose names were published are restrained from filing the forms of examination of university due to low attendance as per the directions (Annexure-1 and Annexure-6 of the writ application).

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no.1 is a student of 4th Semester, CSE Program of RRSDCE, Begusarai (211051250440) and has been not allowed to appear in the 4th semester examination 2023 vide order Dated 04-01-2024 bearing Letter no- RRSDCE/EC/2024/001, however, he has also submitted the medical report for the claim of attendance and deserves to be consider his case with leniency, however, the respondents herein has not considered the medical report submit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top