Concessions for attendance shortage and medical leave are subject to the rules and policies of the educational institution, and the court may consider previous judgments in similar cases.

G.S. Sandhawalia , J.

1. The petitioner seeks issuance of admit card of 2nd semester of B.Ed. (Special Education) (Mental Retardation), on account of the fact that she had less attendance and her medical leave was not counted. Resultantly, she had sought permission to sit in the examination of 2nd semester, which was taking place in May, 2016. Her attendance was short on account of the fact that she was 5 months pregnant at the time of admission and on account of the delivery of a female child on 11.11.2015 and various complications, thereafter, the shortage of attendance had occurred, when she was in the 2nd semester.

2. An interim order in her favour was passed on 19.05.2016, allowing her to sit in the said examination, which was to start from 21.05.2016. The said order being conditional was provisional, subject to the final decision of the writ petition.

3. The respondents in the reply have given the details of shortage of the 2nd semester. It has been further submitted that her attendance was extremely short i.e. 6 lectures out of 232 till 29.02.2016. A memo had been served upon her guardian on 04.03.2016 to direct her to attend classes regularly in future, but she did not attend. It was required as per Rule 3.1 that attendance had to be 75% in lectures and practicum separately. It was, accordingly, pleaded that she had only attended 38.6% lectures. The relevant rule reads as under:-

“3.1 A person who possess the qualification laid down in regulation 2.1 & 2.2 is on the roll of a college affiliated for the course of B.Ed. degree during the academic year preceding the examination, and produces the following certificate signed by the principal of college shall be eligible to appear in the examination:-

• Good Moral Character,

• of having undergone the course of training for the degree of Bachelor of Education for one academic year at a college affiliated for this examination, and

• at least 75 per cent attendance in (i) lectures and (ii) practicum separately in each paper, during each semester proceeding the semester and examination.”

However, it was further mentioned that she would be helped to proceed further in 3rd semester provided she completes her short fall in attendance. The 2nd semester examination could be given by her alongwith the 4th semester examination as a late candidate without loosing any time and she would be eligible to complete the course alongwith her other classmates, subject to her academic performance. Reliance upon Rule 6.3 was, accordingly, made which reads as under:-

“6.3 A student who has failed/absent in course/s of first semester shall be eligible to clear the same along with the examination of Second Semester and the student who has failed/absent in Second Semester, will appear in the examination along with the students of First Semester of next Session after fulfilling all the requirements. The dates of additional/compartment examination shall be declared by the Vice-Chancellor, if necessary beyond three months.”

4. It is, thus, apparent that the respondents have taken a very sympathetic view, so that the petitioner would not loose a year.

5. It was noted by this Court on 04.08.2016 that benefit of 15 lectures could be granted by the respondent-college and 30 as an exceptional case on the recommendation of the Principal by the University under Rule 3.3. Since, admittedly it is not disputed that she had a medical problem, on account of her pregnancy and the delivery of the child.

6. Counsel for the respondent submitted that in spite of the said benefit also, the petitioner would not make the cut and would only reach to 46.8% well short of the 75% requirement of the lectures.

7. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Madras High Court in 'Nithya Vs. University of Madras and others, 1995 AIR (Madras) 464 and 'Kavitha Rajagopal Vs. The Registrar, The Tamil Nadu, Dr. Ambedkar Law University' 2008 (1) CTC 374 and in W.P. No.440 of 2011 A. Arulin Ajitha Rani Vs. State represente