AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.N.PATEL, Chief Justice (Oral)
The proceedings in the matter have been conducted through video conferencing.
This letters patent appeal has been preferred by original petitioner in W.P.(C) 8156/2020. The appellant (original petitioner) is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 24.11.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 8156/2020 (Annexure A-13 to the memo of this LPA). By the impugned judgment and order dated 24.11.2020, the petition preferred by this appellant praying for direction upon respondents to release the 6th Semester result of the Petitioner and to allow him to appear for the 5th Semester examination in the light of the notification dated 30.09.2020 issued by the Respondent No.2 was dismissed, mainly for the reason that the petitioner had not attended the classes for the 5th semester for pursuing B.A.(Hons.) (History).
Having heard learned counsel for both the sides, and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that this appellant is a regular student of 3rd year B.A.(Hons.) History, studying in the Department of History and Culture, Jamia Millia Islamia.
The attendance of this appellant (original petitioner) for 5th semester in B.A.(Hons.) (History) was 14.55%. Due to shortage of attendance, he was barred from appearing in the 5th semester examinations and was never promoted to the 6th semester.
This appellant has prayed for the declaration of the results of the 6th semester as he had attended the online classes and submitted all the assignments for 6th Semester. This contention cannot be accepted by this Court mainly for the reason that this student was not able pass the 5th semester examinations and therefore there is no question whatsoever for allowing the prayer of this appellant regarding declaration of result of 6th semester examination.
For ready reference, the copy of the attendance sheet, showing the attendance of this appellant (original petitioner) in the 5th semester of B.A.(Hons.) (History) reads as under:
“DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY & CULTURE Attendance Register for Session Jul/2019 - Dec/2019
From 18/07/2019 to 28/11/2019
Run Date : 17/10/2020 Course : B.A. (H) History (Semester) - V Sem. Admission Type : Regular 33 20179224 Nadeem Alam 67.60 34 20172024 Nazrul Islam 91.73 35 20177279 Nuzhat Praveen 79.35 36 20178920 Owais Mushtaq Bhat 75.80 37 20178232 Pradeep Kumar 39.46 38 20177278 Pritam Vishal 76.68 39 20171704 Reyaz Ahmad Reshi 69.83 40 20175019 Rizwanul Haque 66.93 41 20172564 Sahrish Fatima 87.45 42 20171693 Sahul Khan 73.03 43 20175088 Shahid Gulzar 72.53 44 20172727 Shahvar Bano 91.51 45 20172451 Shahzeen 87.59 46 20172039 Shamaila Shah 80.39 47 20174825 Sifat Khan 64.83 48 20174139 Srajit M Kumar 65.30 49 20171804 Swapnil 78.21 50 20173350 Syed Sadique Raza 14.55 51 20172550 Tanzila Zafar 83.87 52 20171800 Thashrif M V 85.92 53 20171770 Usman Qureshi 68.34 54 20175004 Zakia Nasim 79.28 --- End of Report ---
(Emphasis supplied.)
In view of the aforesaid facts, it appears that this appellant had attended only 14.55% classes in the 5th semester, and therefore he was not allowed to appear in the examinations of 5th semester.
In the memo of this LPA, several reasons for not attending classes for 5th semester have been pointed out at page no. 15, paragraph (d) onwards. Looking at page no. 15, paragraph (d) onwards, this appellant is claiming that he was ill and had gone to his native place in Bihar, and thereafter, because of the situation in Delhi due to pollution and campus unrest etc., he had not attended classes. According to him, due to these events, he was not allowed to return to Delhi by his parents. These reasons have been given in paragraphs d, e, f, g, h, i, j etc. None of these contentions are helpful to the appellant. There is consistent absenteeism of this appellant in the 5th semester for one reason or another, ranging from his ill health to pollution to being disallowed to return to Delhi by his parents. Further, nothing has been pointed by this appellant at the relevant time to the respondents. Unless the 5th semester examinations are cleared, the 6th semester results cannot be allowed to be declared. In fact, it is not as if this appellant has been permitted to appear in any of the examinations of 6th semester. His attendance in online classes of 6th semester, and submission of assignments cannot, in the backdrop of the abovenoted facts, entitle him to any relief from this Court.
Moreover, it appears from the facts of the case that this appellant has already been re-admitted in 5th semester as per the rules of re-admission. For ready reference, the rules of re-admission read as under:
“5. Re-admission
5.1A A student of the 1st Year/1st Semester of any course who is detained due to shortage of attendance will no longer remain a student of the University. Such a student will have to seek re-admission. If a student of 1st Year/1st Semester of any course who fails in the Annual/Semester-end Examination or who could not take the examination for reasons other than shortage of attendance may be allowed to appear as an Ex-Student in the consecutive Annual/1st Semester-end Examination.
5.2A student of other than 1st Year/1st Semester, who has not taken the examination due to shortage of attendance, may be given re-admission in the said class of that course in the next consecutive Year/Semester. In case, the student fails to fulfill the requirement of attendance after being given re-admission, his/her admission shall stand cancelled.”
(emphasis supplied)
In view of the aforesaid position of the rules of the respondents, this appellant has got re-admission in the 5th semester. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge, as stated in the impugned final order dated 24.11.2020, while dismissing the writ petition being W.P.(C) 8165/2020, especially paragraph 3 onwards of the impugned order. We are in full agreement with the reasons given by the learned Single Judge in the order dated 24.11.2020. We see no reason to take any other view than that which has been taken by the learned Single Judge. Hence, there is no substance in this LPA.
With these observations, this LPA is dismissed.