AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J
The petitioner was a student of B.Tech at National Institute of Technology, Srinagar Garhwal, Uttarakhand. He is aggrieved by the order dated
14.06.2018, by which he has been removed from the Institute. The reason for taking this extreme action against the petitioner at the hands of the
Institute came up as the petitioner in his first, second and third semesters had fallen miserably short of attendance. In the first and second semesters,
the attendance of the petitioner was less than 65 percent, whereas the minimum requirement is 75 percent. Apart from this, the credit score of the
petitioner was also not up to the mark. The petitioner admits this factual position but takes recourse of the fact that firstly the weather in hills does not
suit him as he belongs to Bihar and secondly he had caught jaundice, and consequently, he could not attend the classes.
However, it is not a case where the petitioner had taken any medical leave or any form of leave from the Institute. This Court had requested the
learned counsel for the Institute Sri Paresh Tripathi to see if any avenue can be explored for adjusting the petitioner, but the answer is in negative.
Moreover, this Court has been informed that the 2
National Institute of Technology is an Institute of excellence at the State level. The stand of the petitioner has been annexed by the Institute in its
counter affidavit which is Annexure No. 10 to the counter affidavit, wherein earlier he had given an undertaking to improve his grades and attend
classes, or else the Institute may take an action against the petitioner.
Considering the dismal attendance of the petitioner and his less than minimum performance, and that the petitioner has already been given a
warning earlier and also considering his undertaking that where understood very well that in case he shall not be able to cope up, his admission shall
stand cancelled automatically, this Court is of a considered view that any kind of indulgence in this matter would be per se violative of Rules and set a
wrong precedent. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed.