( 51 ) SHE says that between January to March 1975 there were 4 or 5 occasions when she was not well and had an attack of influenza due to which she could not attend the College. She is prepared to adduce sufficient evidence in support of her illness. The Principal has given the stereo-type reply that no leave of absence was applied for and no medical certificate was submitted till the end of the academic year. But the petitioner is entitled to show that she was disabled from attending the College when she was down with influenza on 4 or 5 occasions from January to March, 1975. Her pica regarding written tutorials as a substitute for attendance tutorials is not covered by Ordinance VII. The detention order against her is set aside and the Principal is directed to give her a hearing as to her absence due to influenza on 4 or 5 occasions during the period from January to March, 1975.

( 52 ) HER absence was due to her father's death and her mother's illness. This reason is not covered by Ordinance VII. The only possible relief she could get was from the Vice-Chancellor and the Academic Council under Ordinance XA. Unfortunately, her representation under Ordinance XA has been rejected. She is going to approach him again. We, therefore, are unable to help her and her writ petition has to be dismissed.

( 53 ) HER claim under clause 2 (9) (a) was considered and rejected by the Principal on merits. We cannot interfere with the decision. She says she was ill in February and March 1975 and had submitted two medical certificates. The Principal says that only one medical certificate regarding her illness in March v/as received by her. She further says that this certificate could not be taken into consideration for the reason that during the period she was stated to be bed ridden, it was seen from the records that she attended her classes on 10-3-1975 and had come to the College Office for obtaining her clearance form on 20-3-1975 which circumstance casts doubts on the geunineness of the certificate. It is explained for the petitioner that some one else must have proxied for her on 10-3-1975 and she had to collect her clearance. But it is the duty of the Principal to hear her before drawing unilateral conclusions. Her detention is set aside and the Principal is directed to give her a hearing.

( 54 ) IN this case the petitioner was beared. She submitted four medical certificates to explain her absence. Only one of them was accepted and the other three were rejected because the petitioner was found to have been present during the period covered by the certificate. This is a decision on the merite of her case by, the Principal with which we cannot interfere. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.

( 55 ) SHE was admitted late in the College and claims that the percentage of her attendance should be calculated only from the date of her admission. This contention is contrary to Regulation 13 framed under section 32 of the Delhi University Act and cannot be accepted. The reply of the Principal is that even if this is done still she is short of the required percentage of attendance. Her only remedy was, therefore, under Ordinance XA. Her representation under Ordinance XA has, however, been unsuccessful though she is making a second one. She is not therefore entitled to any relief. Her writ petition is dismissed.

( 56 ) HER pleading is extremely vague. She simply says that she was unwell on a few occasions. She says that she has sufficient evidence including the medical certificate to show that she was actually unwell for a short time. The expression "on a few occasions" and "for a short time" do not tally with each other. She does not indicate when she was ill and even the year in which she was ill. No medical certificate is produced even with the writ petition. Nor is the nature of Illness indicated. Her pleading is, therefore, too vague to make out any cause of action. Her claim is, therefore, rejected.

( 57 ) SHE says that she could not att

Click Here to Read the rest of this document