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

2022 Supreme(Mad) 4005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
Amith Minsha S. - Petitioner
Versus
The Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, Represented by its Registrar & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. No. 27689 of 2022
Decided On : 24-11-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. K. Sakthivel for Ms. D. Revathi Karthick.
For the Respondents: Mr. Arunkumar Rajan Standing Counsel.

The judgment establishes the principle that students must meet minimum attendance requirements and may only be exempted from them under specific conditions as provided by the relevant legal provisions.

Headnote:

Writ Petition - Education - Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University Act, 1996, Section 45 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 45 of the Act, the University Ordinances, and the Bar Council of India Rules in the context of the petitioner's request for exemption from attendance requirements due to medical reasons. The court interpreted the provisions and concluded that the petitioner did not meet the minimum attendance requirements and therefore dismissed the writ petition.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a law student, sought a writ of mandamus to permit her to appear for exams and be admitted to the third year classes due to her inability to attend the second year second semester exams and classes following a serious accident and subsequent surgeries.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner did not meet the minimum attendance requirements for the second year second semester exams and classes, and therefore dismissed the writ petition.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner could be exempted from the attendance requirements due to medical reasons.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the provisions of Section 45 of the Act, the University Ordinances, and the Bar Council of India Rules to determine that the petitioner did not meet the minimum attendance requirements and therefore could not be exempted from them.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner did not make out a case to succeed.

ORDER :

[PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear for the 2nd year 2nd semester exams, 3rd year 1st semester exams, to admit her in the 3rd year classes.]

The prayer sought for in this writ petition is for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear for the 2nd year 2nd semester exams, 3rd year 1st semester exams, to admit her in the 3rd year classes.

2. The petitioner joined in 5 years B.B.A., L.L.B., law course in the 2nd respondent College in the academic year 2020-2021 as she successfully completed the first year law degree course in the year 2021, she was moved to second year classes for 2021-22.

3. While that being so, on 27.12.2021 the petitioner met with an accident with the result she was sustained with multiple fractures.

4. Therefore, she was treated at Royapettah Government Hospital and the petitioner required to take certain surgeries, she was shifted to private hospital at Coimbatore.

5. In the said hospital, the petitioner underwent several surgeries and finally discharged from the hospital only on 11.01.2022, however the petitioner was put in bedridden for a couple of months.

6. Because of this accident, the petitioner was unable to attend the college for the whole rest of the second year and though this absence on the part of the petitioner is not a wilful one, the petitioner has not been permitted to go to the next year i.e. third year law course and also the petitioner was not permitted by the respondents to write the second year second semester examination. Hence, at this juncture the petitioner has moved the present writ petition seeking the aforestated prayer to permit the petitioner to go for the third year classes and to write the second year second semester examinations.

7. Heard Mr. K. Sakthivel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner who would submit that, it is an admitted fact that due to the accident and subsequent surgeries she undertaken she had been put in the hospital for some time and thereafter had to take bed rest for some months, therefore she could not attend the rest of the second year course.

8. It is also an admitted fact that, because of the absence on the part of the petitioner due to the aforestated reason, she could not earn any attendance for the second semester of the second year course.

9. However, the learned counsel would submit that, in a case of this kind of medical reasons the University under the provisions of the Act under which the University has been established is empowered to give exemption to the candidates like the petitioner from the provisions of the statute under which otherwise the petitioner should have earned 75% of attendance in each semester or atleast should have earned 66% of attendance in each semester and for the remaining 10% he/she may be eligible to seek for condonation on medical or any acceptable reasons which the University has to decide by exercising its powers vested in them under the provisions of the Act as well as the statute.

10. When that being so, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that, under Section 45 of the Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University Act, 1996 (in short 'the Act'), such a power is vested with the Syndicate of the University. Therefore, the pathetic condition of the petitioner for not having attended the second semester course of the second year and the entire absence on the part of the petitioner for the second year second semester course can be condoned and by thus the petitioner may be entitled to go for the third year and also to allow to write the second semester in second year examinations.

11. In this context, the learned counsel relies upon Section 45 of the Act which reads thus :

    “No candidates shall be admitted to any University examination unless he is enrolled as a member of a University college or of an affiliated or app

        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