Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 20950
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Devan Ramachandran, J
DR.ANU ANNA JACOB – Appellant
Versus
COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY – Respondent
WP(C)/4375/2021
SRI.K.C.ELDHO, SRI. S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY - SC
Provisionally allowing a student to sit for exams is appropriate while attendance disputes are being resolved, ensuring no irreparable harm occurs.
Headnote:
Attendance - Legal Education - - Summary of provisions regarding attendance requirements and the court's interpretation of the petitioner's right to exam participation based on attendance discrepancies.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a legal student, faced exclusion from her upcoming exams due to attendance issues in one subject, which she contested as being inaccurately reported.
Finding of the Court:
The court found merit in the petitioner's claims and emphasized the need for the university to consider her complaint regarding attendance before making a decision.
Issues: Whether the petitioner could be allowed to sit for exams despite disputed attendance records and the need for timely resolution of her complaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that provisional admission to exams was justified to prevent irreparable harm to the petitioner while the dispute over attendance was resolved.
Final Decision: Petition granted; the petitioner allowed to write exams provisionally pending the university's decision on her complaint.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner says that she is pursuing legal studies in the evening course with the Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT) and that she has fared well in all the semester examinations conducted by the University until now. She says that the 3rd semester examinations are scheduled to commence on 24.02.2021, as per Ext.P7 notification, but that she has been told that she will not be allowed to write the same, since she does not have the requisite attendance in one of the subjects.
2. The petitioner asserts that it is evident, even from Ext.P5, that she has sufficient attendance in all other subjects, except one and she alleges this is because the 4th respondent has illegally reduced it to 58%, against 90% which is her real percentage. The petitioner submits that, she has, therefore, preferred Ext.P6 complaint before the 3rd respondent – Director of School of Legal Studies, CUSAT and prays that same be directed to be taken up and disposed of within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
3. The petitioner, through her learned counsel, Shri.K.C.Eldho, also prays that she be allowed to write the examination commencing on 24.02.2021, contending that otherwise, she would be irreparably prejudiced.
4. In response to the afore submissions of the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for CUSAT, Shri.S.P.Aravindakshan Pillai, submitted that if the petitioner only requires Ext.P6 complaint to be taken up and disposed of within a time frame, there is no legal impediment in doing so and that his client will not stand in the way of this Court passing orders to such effect. He, however, prayed that this Court may not make any affirmative declarations as regards the attendance of the petitioner and leave it to the 3rd respondent to take a decision thereon as per law.
5. As regards the examination beginning on 24.2.2021, Shri.S.P.Aravindakshan Pillai, submitted that every effort will be taken to dispose of Ext.P6 at the earliest, but that if this Court is so inclined, the petitioner may be allowed to write the said examinations provisionally, subject to the decision to be taken by the 3rd respondent on Ext.P6. He prayed that this writ petition be ordered only on such terms.
6. When I consider the afore submissions, it is without doubt that the question whether the petitioner has sufficient attendance or otherwise, is not something that this Court can speak about affirmatively at this stage; and the 3rd respondent will have to certainly consider Ext.P6 and take an appropriate decision thereon as per law.
7. As regards the examinations commencing on 24.2.2021, I certainly find favour with the request of the petitioner, that she be allowed to write the same provisionally, since otherwise if, after the 3rd respondent consideres Ext.P6 and it is found that she has sufficient attendance, she would be irreparably prejudiced.
In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and direct the 3rd respondent to take up Ext.P6 complaint of the petitioner and dispose it of, after affording her an opportunity of being heard – either physically or through video conferencing – thus culminating in an appropriate order thereon as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
In the meanwhile, the petitioner will be allowed to write the examinations commencing on 24.2.2021 provisionally, which will be subject to the decision to be taken by the 3rd respondent on Ext.P6.
After I dictated this part of the judgment, Shri.K.C.Eldho, submitted that his client has also sought that respondents 1 to 3 be directed to issue apposite guidelines and rules in connection with the manner in which attendance should be taken during the online classes and that it is because there are no such guidelines, that the controversy in question has arisen.
I certainly find some cause for the petitioner in this regard and therefore, further direct respondents 1 to 3 to immediately consider this issue and
