AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.S. Subramani, J.—Petitioner is a Law Student doing B.L. Course in the second Respondent College in Evening Course. According to Petitioner, she was short of attendance and hence she paid condonation fee for the shortage in attendance and did abide by the other Regulations of College and University. Petitioner also Produced Medical Certificate as required by authorities but the same was not forwarded by second Respondent. Examination was fixed on 5.5.1998 and till 3.5.1998, Petitioner could not get her hall ticket. On 4.5.1998, third Respondent directed second Respondent to permit Petitioner to sit for examination. The results of the examinations are yet to be published.
Petitioner again approached second Respondent and wanted to attend third year course. But second Respondent did not permit her and hence Petitioner again approached third Respondent and by letter dated 10.8.1998 third Respondent gave directions to second Respondent to permit the Petitioner to Join College for third year course and attend classes, and the question of loss of attendance is to be dealt with separately. Subsequent to this direction also second Respondent did not permit Petitioner to join College is the grievance of the Petitioner. But at the same time, second Respondent wanted Petitioner to take note of the W.P.7230 of 1998 which came to be filed by one Meenakshi. It is said that Petitioner has nothing to do with the said Writ Petition.
This Writ Petition is filed only to compel second Respondent to abide by the directions of the third Respondent. It is said that second Respondent has to obey the directions of the third Respondent since second Respondent institution is affiliated to third Respondent University. Since second Respondent is refusing to abide by the directions of third Respondent in admitting Petitioner to third year course, Petitioner is put to hardships and difficulties and Petitioner will loose one year of education in her student career. Petitioner, therefore has come to this Court for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing Respondents 1 and 2 to implement the order of directions of third Respondent dated 10.8.1998 in favour of Petitioner and allow her to do third year B.L. Degree Course during 1998-99 successfully at second Respondent College and thus render justice.
A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by second Respondent. It is stated therein that Petitioner was admitted to three year B.L. Degree Course during 1996-97 for the first year course. In the first year course itself she was not regular in attending classes resulting in shortage of attendance. Since she was within the permissible limit of Principal''s condonation power, she was granted condonation to quality for appearing for University examination.
With this background, Petitioner moved to second year course for the academic year 1997-98, the classes of which commenced on 1.8.1997. Petitioner started attending classes only from 11.8.1997 and stopped attending classes from 29.1.1998 while the College functioned upto 21.4.1998. According to Respondent, from the month of August 97 to January 1998, Petitioner attended only 70 days. Considering her poor attendance, College sent a communication on 13.12.1997 by Certificate of posting advising Petitioner to be regular in attendance, otherwise, she may not be qualifying for appearing University Examinations. Instead of showing improvement in attendance, she stopped attending College from 29.1.1998. It is said out of 180 working days, Petitioner attended only 70 days, as against the minimum required attendance of 135 days. If only she had attended atleast 115 days, some concession would have been given by Principal by condoning her lack of attendance.
As per University Regulations, total number of working days for College is 180 days or 900 instructional hours. All candidates must put in 75% of attendance for Law Course. For the purpose of recommendation for condonation, shortage of attendance by the Principal of College is upto the maximum of 12.5% of the total number of working days with a view to permit the candidate to appear for University examinations. Condonation fee is Rs. 100/- . Candidates who earn below 63.5% of attendance may however at the discretion of the Principal be permitted to make up the shortage of attendance during the next immediate academic year to the extent necessary and appear for the September or April as the case may be, such candidates should not be allowed to proceed to the next year of the course. The above position of the University has been further clarified in their letter dated 27.9.1993 wherein it has been specifically stated that candidates who have put in less than 50% of the attendance have to repeat the course (by rejoining) for which they lack attendance without permitting them to proceed for second or third year until they earn the required attendance for that particular year, and the candidates who have put in not less than 50% of attendance may be permitted to proceed to the next year of the course and they may be permitted to take next September or subsequent University Examination by paying prescribed condonation fee. So far as Petitioner is concerned, she has attended College only for 70 days, much less than 50% of total attendance and she is not eligible to write Examinations.
It is further said that on 20.4.1998 one Sirumulai Rama Elangovan approached the deponent introducing himself as President of State Adi Dravidar Organisation Joint Council and presented a letter on behalf of Petitioner stating that Petitioner did not attend College due to health reasons and therefore she must be allowed to appear for University Examinations and unless his demand is conceded, he may take other steps to achieve his mission. On 6.5.1998, Petitioner along with said Rama Uangovan brought a communication from University of Madras asking second Respondent to permit Petitioner to attend University Examinations. Pursuant to the said direction, Petitioner was permitted to Write Examinations.
It is said that University has unnecessarily found fault with College only for following University Regulations. In the letter written by University addressed to the College, a reference is made to ragging of Petitioner by one Paul Jayaseelan, who is also a student of same College. Paul Jayaseelan was asked to explain his conduct and he denied the same and at the same time he also enclosed a copy of letter from the very same Petitioner where she has disapproved the ragging story, in her letter dated 17.5.1998 to the Registrar. In that letter Petitioner had stated that the story of ragging by Paul Jayaseelan as alleged by her cousin is not true and she absented herself only because of illness.
Another student by name Meenakshi who was having only 50 days of attendance also came to this Court in W.P.7230 of 1998. In her Writ Petition, Meenakshi has stated that Petitioner herein has been permitted to write Examination only because she has been recommended by the Governor of Tamil Nadu. The Writ Petition filed by Meenakshi was dismissed.
Petitioner again approached University of Madras and by letter dated 10.8.1998 a direction has been given by University asking second Respondent to permit Petitioner to attend the classes for third year course, with a statement that condonation of her attendance will be dealt with separately. Second Respondent has said that the University permitted Petitioner to write Examinations contravening all the Rules and further flouting its own Regulations and by its communication dated 10.8.1998, directed second Respondent to admit Petitioner in the higher class in violation of its own Rules of attendance.
Respondent College therefore on 12.8.1998 addressed to the Registrar of University of Madras that as per the Rules and Regulations Petitioner is not entitled to write Examinations or attend third year course, for which no reply has been sent by the University. It also did not change its attitude. Simultaneously Rama Elangovan based on University''s communication dated 10.8.1998 is threatening the College with dire consequences unless it implements the direction of the University with a claim for damage of Rs. 25 lakhs.
According to the second Respondent, the University itself is governed by certain Rules and Regulations and they cannot violate the Law and the very same University cannot direct the affiliated College against the provisions of its own Regulations. It prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
Even though third Respondent/ University has been served with notice, it has not entered appearance.
The only question that requires consideration is whether Petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for?
It is the case of the second Respondent that Petitioner did not have sufficient attendance to Write Examinations for second year Law Course. She stopped attending classes from 29.1.1998 though College worked upto 20.4.1998. It is also said that from August 1997 to January 1998, she attended classes only for 70 days which is far less than the required number of attendance. It is further said that the academic year, total number of working days were 180 days. A candidate should attend at least 135 days i.e., 75%. If it is not below 63-1/2%, the Principal can recommend for condonation. If it is below 50% of total attendance, the candidate will have to repeat the same course by rejoining the course. The candidate cannot Write Examination, nor she is permitted for the second or third year course. If it is above 50%, candidate could be permitted to attend classes in the next year course, and she may be permitted to Write Examinations in the next September or subsequent University Examination by paying prescribed condonation fees.
Petitioner does not dispute the fact that she has attended only 70 days out of total number of 180 working days. So, it is much less than required attendance. That being so, University itself is not empowered to permit the candidate to write Examination or permit the student to go to the next year. In the counter affidavit in para 2, details of attendance are given which read thus,
August, 1997 15 days
September, 1997 - 17 days
October, 1997 7 days
November 1997 - 9 days
December, 1997 - 15 days
January, 1998 7 days
Total = 70 days
Before further proceeding in to the matter, it is relevant to extract the relevant Rules regarding attendance. The Rules of University are extracted in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the counter affidavit, which read thus,
The number of working days as stipulated by the University is 180 days or 900 instructional hours.
All candidates must put in 75% of attendance for the law course.
For the purpose of recommendation for condonation, shortage of attendance by the Principals of Colleges upto maximum of 12.15% of the total number of working days with a view to permit the candidate to appear for the University Examination.
The condonation fee is Rs. 100/- . The principals should send in Proforma I (three copies) the details of the students in whose case condonation is granted.
Candidate who earn below 63.5% of attendance may however at the discretion of the principal be permitted to make up the shortage of attendance during the next immediate academic year to the extent necessary and appear for the September or April as the case may be such candidate should not be allowed to proceed to the next year of the course.
The above position is as per University clarification in their communication dated 14.7.1993. This was further clarified on 27.9.1993 as follows:
I am to inform you the syndicate of the University has resolved to extend the Rules so far applicable to BA/B. Sc./B. Com Degree courses with regard to condonation of shortage of attendance and detention of students for want of attendance to the law courses also since the date of inception of these Rules. The following are the Rules regarding condonation of attendance and detention of students for want of attendance.
Candidates who have put in less than 50% of attendance have to repeat the course (by rejoining) for which they lack attendance without permitting them to proceed for II/I1I year until they earn the required attendance for that particular year.
Candidates who have put in not less than 50% of attendance may be permitted to proceed to the next year of the course and they may be permitted to take next September or subsequent University Examination by paying the prescribed condonation (fee of Rs. 100/- for each candidate) without putting in further attendance.
All these Rules will be applicable to students who are admitted to I/II/III year during the academic year 92-93 and thereafter.
The correctness of the above University Rules is also not disputed by the Petitioner.
When Petitioner was refused permission to write Examination for second year, third Respondent herein directed second Respondent to give necessary permission to Petitioner to write Examination. It is better to extract the entire letter.
I am to inform you that Sirumulai Rama Elangovan, President, State Adi Dravidar Organisation has reported to the University SC/ST Cell that Thiru. Paul Jayaseelan, final year Law Student of your College made harassment and atrocities in name of ragging on her daughter Ms. Suhasini, II year Law Student. She was also threatened to be raped as per his complaint.
In the meantime, the ensuing Law Examination date has been fixed for 5.5.1998. She has approached the Principal, Law College for her hall ticket, but the College has refused to issue the hall ticket, as she has not put in the required attendance though she produced the Medical Certificate for her absence. Thiru S.R. Elangovan, President, State Adi Dravidar organisation states that his daughter suffered mental torture due to students threat, it is also claimed by him that the Examination Application form was not forwarded by the College to the University.
At this juncture, Ms. Suhasini, II year Law Student may be permitted to attend the II year ensuing May 98 Examination, pending enquiry into the matter.
In view of the above circumstances, I request that Ms. Suhasini, II year Law Student be permitted to take the Examination, Subject to the condition that her results will be withheld and will be released only if she fulfilled the attendance requirements.
Pursuant to this direction by third Respondent, second Respondent permitted Petitioner to write Examination, the results of which have not been published.
Thereafter, second Respondent did not permit Petitioner to attend third year course in view of the same Regulations framed by the University. Again Petitioner approached University and got a direction on 10.8.1998 directing second Respondent to permit her to attend the course. Second Respondent College did not do so, which necessitated filing of this Writ Petition.
After hearing the counsel on both sides, I feel third Respondent University is favouring Petitioner for some reason or other and flouting its own Regulations. The only reason for directing second Respondent to permit Petitioner to write Examination was that Petitioner was attempted to be ragged by one Paul Jayaseelan. Paul Jayaseelan was asked to appear before the College and to explain his conduct. Petitioner herself had written to Paul Jayaseelan that the story of attempt for ragging is false and she does not approve the conduct of her cousin S.R. Elangovan, President of State Adi Dravidar Organisation. When Petitioner herself admitted that the reason submitted by her cousin is false, the University is wrong in permitting such a candidate to write Examinations. Third Respondent was again lenient towards Petitioner and that is why it again directed second Respondent to permit Petitioner to attend for third year course.
Third Respondent is a statutory body and has issued its own Regulations. When second Respondent immediately wrote back on 12.8.1998 stating that the permission granted to Petitioner is violating Rules of University, third Respondent even did not care to send a reply.
In this connection, another candidate one Meenakshi also filed Writ Petition stating that Petitioner herein has been permitted by University to write Examination and also to attend classes and she must also be given the same benefit. That Writ Petition was dismissed by this Court. When University has committed illegality and flouted its own regulations, I do not think that I should give directions to the second Respondent College to permit Petitioner to continue the course for third year. It is true that College is bound to obey the directions of the University. But those directions also must be legal and enforceable. If it is per se illegal and the same is intended to show favour to some particular individual and the same is issued flouting all Laws, College is not bound to obey such directions issued by the University. On going by the correspondence, I feel that University also became afraid only because of the person who represented before it, the President of Adi Dravidar Organisation, who has threatened the College with dire consequences. Only because of the fear of the Community and Organisation, University stooped to such a level of violating of Laws.
Even though University has been served, I feel it abstained from attending Court only because it knows that what it has done is illegal and it cannot stand in a Court of Law. It cannot justify its action.
At the time when Petitioner wanted to write Examination for second year course, she submitted Medical Certificate. She did not have a case that she was ragged by any other student. She repeated the statement subsequently also. But the University was moved by the threats of President of State Adi Dravidar Organisation, wherein he described Petitioner as his daughter, though Petitioner disowns it and treated him only as his cousin.
When giving directions, University is also bound to look into its Rules and Regulations and before finding fault with the College, it must ask the College its explanation before giving any such directions. The Propriety demands statutory body to function in that way. The Principal has also status in a College. By giving such directions without looking into the records, University has committed patent illegality and harassed the College which wanted only to obey the Rules and regulations. Only because second Respondent obeyed the Rules and Regulations, it was found fault by the University.
The direction issued by University dated 10.8.1998 is per se illegal and it is declared that the second Respondent is not bound to obey the same. Likewise, second Respondent is also not bound to publish the results of the second year Examinations of Petitioner since she has not fulfilled her second year attendance requirement. In fact, the order dated 4.5.1998 permitting Petitioner to attend Examination is itself subject to the fulfilment of attendance requirement. Once it is admitted that she has not attended the College as required, she will not be entitled to have the results also declared.
In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Petitioner is liable to pay the cost of second Respondent quantified as Advocate fee Rs. 5,000/- . Consequently, W.M.P. No. 25970 of 1998 is also dismissed.