Pooja Sharma and Others vs Morarji Desai National Institute of Yoga

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.—The Petitioner Ms. Pooja Sharma, a student of the one year Diploma course in Yoga of the Respondent Institute has filed this writ petition when stopped from appearing in the examination owing to not having the requisite attendance. It is not in dispute that as per the rules of the Respondent Institute the Petitioner was required to attend, separately, minimum 80% of the theory & 80% of the practical classes. The rules further provide that students having attendance below 80% would not be eligible for appearing in the examination. Discretion to give benefit of 5% attendance on medical ground has been vested in the competent authority of the Respondent Institute.

According to the Petitioner she had 83% attendance in theory and 69% attendance in the practical classes. Notice of the petition was issued on the premise that the Petitioner having aggregate of 76% attendance may be eligible. It may be recorded that the petition in so far as Petitioner No. 2 Mr. Kapil Singh Rao was concerned, was dismissed on 31st January, 2011 itself.

Counter affidavits have been filed. The Petitioner has also filed CM No. 2260/2011 for impleadment of another student namely Ms. Nidhi Sud as a party on the ground that the Respondent Institute has given certain concessions to the said student and which have not been allowed to the Petitioner. However it has been put to the senior counsel for the Petitioner as to how can the Petitioner claim any right of negative equality. The sr. counsel has chosen to argue on the basis of the case of the Petitioner herself.

The contention of the senior counsel for the Petitioner is two fold. Firstly, that owing to the Petitioner residing at a great distance, she was always late in reaching for the practical classes scheduled at 7.00 a.m. in the morning by about 10 to 15 minutes and owing whereto her attendance was not marked. Secondly, it is contended that the Petitioner was assured by all the teachers that notwithstanding her attendance having not been marked, she would not suffer. The Petitioner in this regard has filed an additional affidavit along with affidavits of 26 of her classmates to the said effect.

The counsel for the Respondent Institute contends that the Petitioner has fabricated the said affidavits and that the students whose affidavits have been filed were not even in the same section and were themselves not attending all the classes and are thus not competent to give the affidavits. The counsel for the Respondent Institute has also handed over in the Court the photographs of the attendance sheets which demonstrate that the attendance was not marked by the teacher but signed by the students themselves. It is contended that the very fact that the Petitioner did not sign the attendance shows that she was absent in the class. With respect to the plea of the Petitioner reaching late, it is contended that throughout the term no such representation was made and the said plea is now being taken as an afterthought.

The senior counsel for the Petitioner has contended that in view of as many as 26 affidavits of other students having been filed, the Petitioner being a girl student and for the reason of staying at a great distance she should be granted indulgence.

This Court in Neetu Sharma Vs. Delhi University and Another held that the purport of providing for minimum attendance is to ensure that the students imbibe what is taught in the class and not merely appear in the examination. If the students want to appear in the examination without attending the classes they have the open schools and other institutes, not insisting upon attendance available to them. Once the student joins an Institute where attendance is a must, the student is bound to attend the classes and if does not attend the classes, is not entitled to any indulgence from this Court. In fact the courts have gone to the extent of stating that even on medical grounds attendance cannot be relaxed. The Division Bench of this Court recently in judgment dated 10th January, 2011 in LPA No. 662/2010 titled University of Delhi v. Vandana Kandari has held that exemption from attendance on the ground of maternity also cannot be allowed.

As far as the case of the Petitioner of having attended the classes is concerned, such questions cannot be allowed to be raised as held in Syed Shabeeb Raza Bilgrami and Others Vs. The School of Planning and Architecture, .

The Petitioner having admittedly not attended the minimum number of practical classes cannot be granted the relief of taking the exams.

The petition is dismissed with no order as to costs