Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 3378
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI AND P.DEVADASS, JJ.
The Director, The School of Excellence in Law and Ors. – Appellant
Vs.
K.Mahalakshmi - RESPONDENT
Writ Appeal No.1275 of 2014 and M.P.Nos.1 and 3 of 2014
Decided On : 18-12-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For Appellants : Mr.V.M.G.Ramakkannan
For Respondent: Mr.S.Senthilnathan
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the university's decision to refuse condonation of attendance for the student was unjustified, considering her academic performance and the university's treatment of other students with lower attendance percentages.
Headnote:
Attendance - University Regulations - [B.A.B.L., (Hons.) Degree Course, Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University] - [University Regulations, Bar Council of India Rules] - The court considered the issue of condonation of attendance for a student who had secured only 52.9% attendance, falling short of the prescribed 75%. The court found that the university had condoned the lack of attendance for other students with lower attendance percentages, and directed the university to permit the student to write the III Semester Examination after payment of a condonation fee.
Fact of the Case:
The student was not permitted to write the III Semester Examination due to low attendance. She filed a writ petition seeking permission to write the exam and continue her Third Year Course. The Writ Court allowed the petition, setting aside the university's order and directing the university to permit the student to continue her Third Year Course after condoning the lack of attendance.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the student had successfully completed previous semesters and had a good academic record. It also noted that the university had condoned the lack of attendance for other students with lower attendance percentages, indicating discrimination against the student. The court directed the university to permit the student to write the III Semester Examination after payment of a condonation fee.
Issues: The main issue was whether the university's refusal to condone the lack of attendance for the student was justified, considering her academic performance and the university's treatment of other students with lower attendance percentages.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the university's refusal to condone the lack of attendance for the student was unjustified, especially in light of the university's treatment of other students with lower attendance percentages. It directed the university to permit the student to write the III Semester Examination after payment of a condonation fee.
Final Decision: The court directed the university to condone the lack of attendance for the student in the III Semester of the Second Year B.A.B.L., (Hons.) Integrated 5-year Course on her payment of a condonation fee, and to permit her to write the III Semester Examination. It also emphasized that the case should not be treated as precedent and expected the university to maintain standards and adhere to the provisions of rules and regulations for all candidates.
P.DEVADASS, J.
This Writ Appeal, at the instance of the respondent/Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, Chennai, arises out of the order of the Writ Court passed in W.P.No.20263 of 2014 on 4.9.2014.
2. The writ petitioner Mahalakshmi joined the Five Year Integrated B.A.B.L.,(Hons.) Degree Course in the School of Excellence in Law of the Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University in Chennai. She passed I and II Semester Examinations successfully. Problem arose in her appearing for III Semester (II year 2013-2014) Examination. She was not permitted to write the III Semester Examination by the University as she had secured only 52.9% as against 75% of attendance prescribed by the University.
3. In the meanwhile, she had gone to IV Semester. On 16.12.2013, the University directed her to redo III Semester during the academic year 2014-2015. On 22.7.2014, by its proceedings, the University asked her to explain as to how she had continued to do IV Semester. In the meanwhile, she had passed her IV Semester Examination.
4. In the circumstances, the student requested the University to condone the lack of attendance in the III Semester. However, the University refused it.
5. In this backdrop of the matter, the student filed W.P.No.20263 of 2014 for issuance of a Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the proceedings of the University dated 22.7.2014, quash the same, direct the University to permit her to write III Semester Examination and consequently permit her to attend third year classes for the academic year 2014-2015.
6. The University contended before the Writ Court that condonation can be considered only for those who have attended classes upto 65% and below that it cannot be condoned.
7. The Writ Court, considering both side contentions, allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 22.7.2014, directed the University to permit the student to continue her Third Year Course after condoning the lack of attendance.
8. Aggrieved, the Law University preferred this Writ Appeal.
9. The learned counsel for the Law University contended that minimum the student should have secured 75% of attendance, consideration of condonation will arise, if she had secured 65% of attendance, as she had secured only 52.9%, the University cannot condone the lack of attendance. The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that in this Professional Course, securing required attendance is an essential requirement for maintaining the standards of the Integrated Law Course and this aspect has been overlooked by the Writ Court.
10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/ student contended that actually even as per the calculation of the University, she fell short of only six days to make up the deficiency for condonation of the delay. She is a brilliant student. She has passed I and II Semester Examinations with good marks. She had also passed IV Semester Examination. While she was in the Third Year, directing her to redo III Semester of II year and thereafter write the III Semester Examination is not in accordance with law and it is not in the best interest of the student and it will cripple her educational career.
11. The learned counsel for the respondent further contended that the University has condoned the lack of attendance of many students, who have secured attendance far below the attendance secured by the respondent, however, the University has singled out, discriminated the respondent alone.
12. The learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that the respondent is ready to pay the condonation fee as it was collected and condoned in respect of certain other students.
13. In the light of the above submissions, as directed by this Court, the Registrar of the University filed counter-affidavit. In para-10 of the counter-affidavit, the Registrar admitted they having condoned the lack of attendance of 11
