AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.B. Shukre, J
Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner is a third year student of General Nursing and Midwifery Course offered by respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The petitioner has not been allowed to appear at the third year examination on the ground that she did not complete the requisite 80% attendance in the college, in particular her attendance in clinical studies classes.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner did attend the classes and her attendance was more than 80%. But, due to some complaint made by the petitioner, the petitioner is now being victimized by respondent Nos.4 and 5. He also submits that there is certificate issued by Principal of the College stating that in the first year, the attendance of the petitioner was already 80%. He further submits that there is another certificate at page 34 issued by Principal of the College disclosing that petitioner is studying in the (GNM) Nursing College, Washim 3rd Year Class, having joined institute in the academic year 2018-2019. He submits that the second certificate which is at page 34 should be considered as certificate of attendance.
Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5 submits that dispute is not about the attendance of the petitioner at first year and second year classes and it is in respect of her attendance at third year classes. He submits that her attendance was much below the required percentage of 80% and therefore, she was not eligible for appearing at the third year examination. In support, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5 has invited our attention to various documents placed on record, bunch of which relates to practical books of the petitioner.
Upon going through the practical books of the petitioner in respect of the third year, we find that the claim of the petitioner raises serious dispute about the fact of her attendance of third year classes. Even the documents filed on record by the petitioner at pages 33 and 34 do not show that attendance of the petitioner for the third year was at minimum of 80% of the total number of classes.
About the contention that the petitioner that she and similar other students having made the complaint are being victimized by the college, we must say that even this is something which would have to be agitated before Civil Court by the petitioner, as this issue raises a disputed question of fact.
The disputed questions of fact raised in this petition cannot be gone into by invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition is, therefore, not maintainable.
Thus, the petition stands dismissed.