Telangana HC Denies Plea For Attendance Exemption By Student Who Couldn't Meet 75% Attendance Criterion Due To Rheumatoid Arthritis
The Telangana High Court has dismissed the plea of a veterinary student challenging the attendance exemption denied to her despite her being unable to attend college due to rheumatoid arthritis, holding that attending classes is critical to the success of a student. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti while dismissing the appeal have noted that...
The Telangana High Court has dismissed the plea of a veterinary student challenging the attendance exemption denied to her despite her being unable to attend college due to rheumatoid arthritis, holding that attending classes is critical to the success of a student.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti while dismissing the appeal have noted that the student had failed to challenge the Academic Regulation of the University, namely 10.7 (a) and 10.7 (b) that make it mandatory for a student to have a minimum attendance of 75%. It said:
“The purpose and object of the aforesaid Regulation is to ensure that the student who takes admission in the course attends the course so that he/she can successfully appear in the examinations. Admittedly, the appellant has not secured 75% attendance in the first year B.V.Sc., course. The appellant in the facts of the case has not approached this Court diligently. Ordinarily, the appellant would have been eligible for re-admission to the first-year course. Admittedly, the academic session for the first year B.V.Sc., course has commenced from 05.10.2023 and 25% of the classes have already been completed. Therefore, in the facts of the case, no relief can be granted to the appellant.”
Background
The appellant was in her first year of a Bachelor of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry program pursuing the same from the College of Veterinary Science, P.V. Narasimha Rao Telangana Veterinary University. It was submitted that due to rheumatoid arthritis, her attendance fell below the required 75%.
Five days before her exams, she stated to have requested an attendance exemption, which was not addressed compelling her to file a writ petition, which was dismissed holding that a court cannot override the university's attendance regulation and refusing to take a purposive interpretation.
Dissatisfied, the appellant filed the present appeal while being granted interim permission to write her remaining exams.
Regulation 10.7 (a) of the University Regulation stipulates that an Admission automatically cancels if attendance falls below 75% in the first year, and Regulation 10.7 (b) allows relaxation of this rule by a committee, but not for attendance below 60%.
The appellant sought a "purposive interpretation" of the regulations to allow exemption in compelling situations, arguing that 10.7(b) is unworkable
The court dismissed the appeal, reasoning that the petitioner did not contest the regulation itself, but only its application. It was held that the regulation intended to ensure students attend classes as it would be critcical to a student's success.
Court further held that the petitioner was delayed in her application having requested a waiver days before her exams revealing a lack of diligence and that since a significant portion of her curriculum had already been completed, it would impractical to grant her readmission.
Thus the appeal was dismissed as being devoid of merits.
WA 1188 of 2023
Counsel for petitioner: Baglekar Akash Kumar
Counsel for respondents: R.N. Padmaja, A.Venkata Ramana