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

2022 Supreme(Raj) 2077

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J.
Kajal Saini & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Coordinator & Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13094 of 2021
Decided On : 11-03-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. S.K. Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Narendra Kumar Saini and Mr. V.D. Agnihotri for Mr. Jeetendra Kumar Pandey, for the Appellant
Mr. Indresh Sharma, Mr. Ajit Maloo and Mr. R.K. Paliwal for Mr. R.A. Katta, for the Respondent.

Students failing to meet the attendance criteria cannot be rescued by the court in the absence of any provision for relaxation, as mandated by Ordinance 323 of the University of Rajasthan.

Headnote:

Attendance Requirement - B.Ed. Students - The court dismissed the writ petitions of B.Ed. students who were denied permission to appear in the B.Ed. Part-I Examination-2021 due to shortage of attendance. The court relied on Ordinance 323 of the University of Rajasthan, which mandates a minimum attendance requirement of 80% for all coursework and practicum, and 90% for school internship. The court emphasized that students failing to meet the attendance criteria cannot be rescued by the court in the absence of any provision for relaxation, citing previous judgments that upheld the requirement.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, students of B.Ed. in a college, were denied permission to appear in the B.Ed. Part-I Examination-2021 due to shortage of attendance. One petitioner cited misbehavior by the college administration and health issues as reasons for attendance shortage.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that none of the petitioners had the requisite attendance as mandated by Ordinance 323 of the University of Rajasthan. It emphasized that students failing to meet the attendance criteria cannot be rescued by the court, citing previous judgments that upheld the requirement.

Issues: Shortage of attendance for B.Ed. students, denial of permission to appear in the examination, and the applicability of Ordinance 323 of the University of Rajasthan.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that students failing to meet the attendance criteria cannot be rescued by the court in the absence of any provision for relaxation, citing previous judgments that upheld the requirement.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions of the B.Ed. students and the pending applications, based on the students' failure to meet the attendance requirement.

ORDER

1. Although, the matters have come up on applications filed by the respective parties but, the writ petitions were heard finally at this stage as directed by this Court vide order dated 09.03.2022.

2. Since, these writ petitions share common facts and involve common question of law, they were heard together and are being disposed of vide this common order.

3. In both the writ petitions, the petitioners, students of B.Ed. in the respondent no.3-college, have been denied permission to appear in the B.Ed. Part-I Examination-2021 on account of shortage of attendance. While, in the SBCWP no.13094/2021, nothing has been stated with regard to either shortage of attendance or the reason for such shortage; in the SBCWP No.12888/2021, it has been stated that she was misbehaved with by the college administration and after resolution of the dispute, she started regularly appearing in the college. It is also stated that she could not attend the college on account of Covid-19 since April, 2021 and also for the reason that she suffered from Typhoid in January, 2021 and August, 2021. It is, therefore, prayed in the writ petitions that the respondents may be directed to permit them to appear in the B.Ed. Part-I Examination and to complete their course.

4. The respondents have, in their reply, submitted that none of the petitioners had the requisite attendance and hence, in view of provisions of the Ordinance 323 of the University of Rajasthan, they were not permitted to appear in the examination. It is stated that notices were issued to the petitioners to attend the college regularly lest on failure to secure the minimum attendance required, they would not be permitted to undertake the examination. It is averred that while the petitioner-Kajal Saini has submitted her affidavit (Annexure-R/4/6), stating therein that she has not attended the college on her own from 08.02.2021 to 18.08.2021 and she would be liable if her attendance falls short of the requisite criteria, the petitioner-Chetna Sharma has submitted an affidavit dated 09.03.02021 stating therein that she would regularly attend the college from 09.03.2021 onwards and she would be responsible if there is shortfall in her attendance. Drawing attention of this Court towards the affidavit of the Principal of the Institute (Annexure-R/1/1), learned counsels submitted that only 3 students could not appear in the examination on account of shortfall in the attendance; otherwise, rest 47 students were eligible qua the attendance parameter and hence, it does not lie in the mouth of Ms. Chetna to say that she could not attend the college on account of Covid-19. They, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions.

5. Reiterating the submissions made in the writ petitions, learned counsels for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are eligible and entitled for appearance in the B.Ed. examination as well as to pursue and complete the course. They, therefore, prayed that the writ petitions be allowed in terms prayed for.

6. Per contra, learned counsels for the respondents contended that since the petitioners have failed to secure the requisite attendance in terms of Ordinance 323 of the University of Rajasthan, they are not eligible and entitled to appear in the examination and pursue the course further.

7. Heard. Considered.

8. Ordinance 323 of the University of Rajasthan reads as under:

    'No candidate shall be allowed to appear in the B.Ed. examination part-I and II unless he/she has attended (80% for all course work & practicum, and 90% for school internship).'

    9. Indisputably, none of the petitioners had the requisite attendance enabling them to appear in the B.Ed. Examination Part-I. While, the petitioner in SBCWP no.13094/2021 has not assigned any reason for not attending the college; rather, has concealed that she received the notices to attend the college and has submitted her affidavit (Annexure-R/4/6) stating that she failed to attend the college from 08.02.2021 to 18.08.2021

    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