Back
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
Muhammed Irfan P S – Appellant
Versus
Mahatma Gandhi University – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
The petitioner is a 5th semester BBA student of the KMM College of Arts and Science, Edappally, Cochin, which is affiliated to Mahatma Gandhi University, the 1st respondent. A criminal case was registered against the petitioner on 26.08.2024 and he was in judicial custody for a period of 50 days. He was enlarged on bail on 15.10.2024. The examination for the 5th Semester BBA is slated during November, 2024 and the last date for payment of examination fee was 26.10.2024. The petitioner approached the 3rd respondent, the Principal of the College for registration for the 5th Semester examination. However, by Ext. P1, the request of the petitioner was rejected by the Principal stating that as per the Examination Notification issued by the 1st respondent University, 75% attendance is mandatory to attend University Examination and the petitioner has got only 38% attendance. Challenging Ext. P1, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to the respondents to permit him to register for the examination.
2. This Court on 28.10.2024 issued notice to the Principal by special messenger and the learned standing counsel for the 1st respon
The Head of Institution must forward applications for attendance condonation to the Controller of Examinations; summary rejection is unjustified.
Academic institutions must adhere strictly to attendance regulations as established by legal education rules, allowing discretion only within the specified limits.
Mandatory attendance regulations must be uniformly enforced, and compassion cannot override statutory requirements. Claims of discriminatory treatment require substantial evidence to succeed.
The university's Examination Manual governs attendance condonation, and limits on condonation are valid and enforceable.
Minimum attendance of 75% is mandatory for examination eligibility; Article 14 does not apply to perpetuate illegality.
The adherence to minimum attendance requirements is essential in university regulations, and non-compliance undermines eligibility to sit for examinations.
The judgment established that shortage of attendance due to being in judicial custody was not a ground for condoning the shortage of lectures, as per the University Ordinance.
Legal education standards must be upheld, allowing for exceptions in legitimate medical cases, while reevaluating rigid attendance policies for the welfare of students.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
