M. Sheika Abdulla and Others vs The Chairman, Board of Examinations, Directorate of Technical Education and Others

T.S. Sivagnanam, J.—The petitioners are the students of the second respondent Institution by pursuing their Diploma course. The petitioners in WP.No. 10310, 10312 and 10313 of 2014 are in the final year and the other two writ petitioners, in WP.No. 10311 and 10314 of 2014 are in the second year.

The petitioners in all these writ petitions seek for a direction to permit them to complete the Course for the Diploma in Mechanical Engineering in respect of the academic year 2013-2014. At the time when the writ petitions were entertained, interim direction was issued on 09.4.2014 stating that though the petitioners are lacking in 80% attendance, considering the fact that they are facing examination on next day i.e. 10.4.2014, this Court directed them to write examination with further direction, that results will not be published and it will be subject to the writ petitions and that they will not claim any equity. The petitioners'' contention is that Attendance Register has not been properly maintained by the Institution and the information has been given to the first respondent by an unqualified person and the person who has passed his B.E. only in December 2013, has been appointed as Head of the Department. Hence, it is submitted that the attendance has not been properly recorded. Subsequently, after the examinations were written, the petitioners were not permitted to proceed further and this Court has passed another interim direction on 19.9.2014 observing that the second respondent, based on written information given to the first respondent by an unqualified person, has not permitted the petitioners to appear for examination and, therefore, a direction was issued to the first respondent to conduct an inquiry into the affairs of the second respondent on the maintenance of Attendance Register, qualification of the person, who is maintaining the Attendance Register, who is supposed to be the Head of the Department and submit a report within two weeks. Without prejudice to the right of the second respondent to contest the claim of the petitioners, the petitioners were permitted to write the examination with specific observation that the results will be subject to further orders to be passed by this Court.

Pursuant to the interim direction issued by this Court on 19.9.2014, the Chairman of the Board of Examination and the Directorate of Technical education, Vide letter dated 15.10.2014 has submitted a report to the learned Additional Government Pleader. From the report, it is seen that pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the team of Inspecting officials was constituted consisting of four HODs, headed by the Principal, Periyar Centenary Polytechnic College, Vallam, Thanjavur District, to conduct an inquiry into affairs of the second respondent College on the maintenance of Attendance Register and the said team visited the Maharaja Polytechnic College and verified the class log book, master attendance and e-attendance and submitted a report on 09.10.2014. As per the records, percentage of attendance of the five petitioners are as follows:-

2013-2014 - VI Semester

2013-2014 IV Semester

2013-2014 V Semester

In the report, it is further stated that the petitioners have individually given the letters stating that they are aware of the Board Rules and would not be allowed to write Board Examination if there is a shortage of attendance. As per the direction of this Court, details of the Principal of the first respondent College and HODs which were maintained were produced. Further, the report states that as per the Board of Studies and Board Rules 3.2, a candidate will be permitted to appear for the Board Examinations only if he/she secures 80% attendance in the semester concerned and as per Rule 3.3, condoning of 5% shortage of attendance shall be given on genuine and valid reasons subject to the conditions that he /she satisfies all the other requirements. Further, it is stated that under no circumstances, a candidate with attendance less than 75%, will be permitted to write Board Examination. Even though they were not eligible due to shortage of attendance, because of the interim direction of this Court, they were allowed to write examination. Further particulars as well as the letters written by the five petitioners along with report were also produced.

This Court will not interfere in the attendance requirement when there is a Rule governing the procedure in this regard. It is relevant to refer to the decision of this Court in W.P. No. 20445 of 2014 dated 13.10.2014, wherein this Court rejected the similar prayer by quoting the law laid down in various decisions of this Court. At this stage, it is worthwhile to quote the relevant paragraph of the said Judgment:

"6. The fact that the University cannot condone the lack of attendance beyond a prescribed limit and the fact that the same has been upheld by the decisions of this Court in Leo Francis Xaviour Vs. The Principal, Karunya Institute of Technology, Coimbatore and another, , C. Praveen Chander Vs. The Principal, Sri Venkateswara College of Engineering and The Vice Chancellor, Anna University, , K. Saravanan Vs. The Principal, Government Law College, , P.Balamurugan v. The Government of Tamil Nadu [W.P. No. 10651 of 2008 dated 21.10.2008], Senthil Manoharan V. The Principal, Hindustan College of Engineering [W.P. No. 10941 of 2008 dated 06.08.2009] and K.Khayathri V. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu [W.P. No(MD) No. 3588 of 2013 dated 03.04.2013, are not in doubt. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ petition. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs."

Admittedly, as per the reports submitted by the Chairman, Board of Examinations, Directorate of Technical Education dated 15.10.2014, all the five petitioners who are in 6th, 4th and 5th semesters, do not satisfy the attendance requirements. The Rule provides for condonation of 5% shortage of attendance and that too, for genuine and valid reasons. The petitioners do not come within the 5% cut off and, therefore, they are ineligible to seek for permission to write examination in the light of Rule 3.2 of the Board of Examination and Studies Rules.

In the light of the above, no relief as sought for by the petitioners can be granted. The writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.