BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M.S. RAMESH, J.
Arul Leo Jones - Appellant
Versus
The Registrar, Anna University & Others - Respondent
W.P.(MD) No. 452 of 2018 & W.M.P. Nos. 450 & 451 of 2018
Decided On : 23-04-2018
Attendance - University Regulations - The court sympathetically condoned 5% of the petitioner's attendance error due to a mistake in digital records, allowing him to take part in the third semester examinations.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's attendance for the third semester was recorded incorrectly due to a mistake in digital records, leading to a dispute over his eligibility to take examinations.
Finding of the Court:
The court sympathetically condoned 5% of the petitioner's attendance error and directed the university to issue a hall ticket for him to take part in the third semester examinations, but disallowed him from attending the fourth semester classes due to insufficient attendance.
Issues: Dispute over the petitioner's eligibility to take examinations for the third semester and attend classes for the fourth semester.
Ratio Decidendi: The court sympathetically considered the mistake in digital records and condoned 5% of the petitioner's attendance, allowing him to take part in the third semester examinations.
Final Decision: The court directed the university to issue a hall ticket for the petitioner to take part in the third semester examinations, but disallowed him from attending the fourth semester classes due to insufficient attendance.
1. Since the petitioner had secured only 60% of his attendance for the third semester for the year 2017-2018, he was directed to undergo once again the third semester course for the academic year 2018-2019 through an order dated 15.12.2017 passed by the third respondent herein which is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that his required attendance for the third semester is 420 periods, out of which, the petitioner had 254 periods, which co-relates to 39 working hours. However, the third respondent had entered attendance as 18 working hours instead of 39 working hours and therefore he is eligible to take examinations for the third semester.
3. The learned standing counsel for the second respondent submitted that there was an error committed in the digital records showing the petitioner's attendance as 39 working hours, but when the same was verified with the manual attendance records, it was revealed that the petitioner had attended only 18 working hours which works out to only 60% of the attendance. Since the rules of attendance requires 75% of the attendance out of which 10% attendance would be condoned by the university itself, the petitioner is still in short of 5 % of attendance and therefore, he cannot be permitted to attend the third semester examinations. While that being so, since the petitioner has not attended even a single class for the fourth semester, he is dis-entitled to take part in the fourth semester examinations and that he requires to undergo once again both the semesters.
4. The learned counsel for the third respondent also reiterated the same regulations and submitted that the petitioner has also personally verified the manually maintained attendance which evidences that the petitioner possess only 60 % of the attendance.
5. It is not in dispute that an error had occurred while uploading the attendance in the computers and in view of the mistake that had occurred in the digital records, the petitioner was made to believe that he had the required attendance. Therefore, he had earlier filed the Writ Petition in W.P.(M.D) No.20911 of 2017 seeking for necessary relief. However, the examination dates had lapsed when the writ petition was taken for hearing and hence it came to be dismissed as infructous.
6. I am of the view that the petitioner had immediately come to the court seeking for rectification of the errors and that the mistake committed in the digital records should not be put against him particularly when he is running short of 5% attendance only for the third semester. This observation is made only on sympathetic grounds and this court is conscious of the fact the students should secure 100% attendance and in exceptional cases on medical grounds 35% of the attendance could be condoned.
7. However, in view of the error committed in the digital records, a sympathetic ground can be extended in favour of the petitioner by condoning 5% of his attendance and thereby make him eligible to take part in the third semester examinations. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that the examinations have already commenced from today (i.e. 23.04.2018) onwards for the examinations scheduled to be conducted between 23.03.2018 and 12.05.2018. Since this Court intends to facilitate the petitioner to take part in the third semester examinations, it would be desirable that the second and third respondent should endeavour to issue a hall ticket in his favour preferably before 12.00 noon on 24.04.2018 in order to facilitate him to take part in the third semester examination from 24.04.2018 onwards.
8. Insofar as the prayer for attending the fourth semester classes is concerned, since the petitioner does not have the required attendance for the fourth semester classes, it would not be desirable to permit him to make him re-do the fourth semester classes. It is seen that the fourth semester classes start from the m
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.