Courts Do Not Have Authority To Waive Attendance Criteria Mandated For Appearing In Exam: Telangana High Court Dismisses Law Student's Plea
Recently, the Telangana High Court reiterated that courts do not have the power to waive or reduce the attendance criteria for a student required to appear in a semester exam. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition of a law student seeking relief to appear in the exam.The bench of Justice K.Lakshman referred to the case of State of Andhra Pradesh in M. Sunil Chakravarthy v....
Recently, the Telangana High Court reiterated that courts do not have the power to waive or reduce the attendance criteria for a student required to appear in a semester exam. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition of a law student seeking relief to appear in the exam.
The bench of Justice K.Lakshman referred to the case of State of Andhra Pradesh in M. Sunil Chakravarthy v. Principal wherein it has been observed that, “Since nobody has power to condone the attendance below 65% therefore, it should be assumed that even this Court cannot order such a condonation. Something which is prohibited by the regulations cannot be subject- matter of a mandamus.”
The court was hearing a writ petition filed by a law student, who had requested the court to declare the action of the principal in charge of the college as illegal. The petitioner's name had been struck off the rolls of the college and was not forwarded for the forthcoming semester due to a shortage of attendance. The student prayed to the court to allow him to submit the examination fee.
The petitioner claimed that he had 80% attendance and argued that the respondents were not maintaining the attendance records accurately.
On the other hand, the respondents denied the allegations made by the petitioner.
The respondents pointed out that as per the regulations issued by Osmania University for the LL.B. degree course, Regulation No.11 (j) states that the petitioner is required to have 75% attendance to appear for the semester exam.However, the petitioner did not meet this requirement.
Therefore, show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, and he provided an explanation. After considering the explanation, the respondent Pendekanti Law College issued an order on 20.03.2023, striking the petitioner's name off the rolls. Therefore, the respondents claimed that they had not committed any irregularities, submitted the respondents.
According to respondent Pendekanti Law College, the petitioner had only 58.66% attendance, as compared to the required attendance of 75%. As per the regulations, the petitioner can only seek a waiver of 10% of attendance based on reasons mentioned in the regulations. However, the petitioner does not fall into any of the categories listed in the regulations. Even if the petitioner's attendance were waived, he would still need to have 65% attendance, but he only has 58.66% attendance.
After hearing both the sides, the High Court opined that respondent Pendekanti Law College had followed the procedure laid down in the aforementioned regulations. The college had issued a show-cause notice and called for an explanation from the petitioner. After considering the explanation, the college had, through its proceedings dated 20.03.2023, struck the petitioner's name from its rolls. Therefore, the court did not find any irregularity in the college's actions.
The Court held that, “This Court is not having power to waive or reduce the attendance of a student including the petitioner herein”.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court decision of Ashok Kumar Thakur v. University of Himachal Pradesh which is based on similar facts where it was held that,
“Considering that this case concerns the career of a young student we tried to look at the matter with all possible sympathy and consideration but we do not see how we can direct or compel an authority to do something which is beyond its legal competence to do. Since the Principal is the only authority who can condone and since it was beyond his competence to condone the shortage in question, we do not see how we can intervene in favour of the petitioner even if the petitioner had succeeded in making out a case for condonation. In our opinion, the appeal must fail on this short point.”
The Court further referred to, Division of the High Court of the State of Andhra Pradesh in M. Sunil Chakravarthy v. Principal, Sreekalahasteeswara Institute of Technology in identical set of facts and circumstances and after considering various judgments held as follows:
“Since nobody has power to condone the attendance below 65% therefore, it should be assumed that even this Court cannot order such a condonation. Something which is prohibited by the regulations cannot be subject- matter of a mandamus”.
In light of the above, the Court held that the petitioner has 58.66% attendance as against the required attendance of 75%. It is not in dispute that Respondent Law College can reduce the said attendance to a maximum of 10% on certain conditions. However, the petitioner herein is not falling in such categories. Even if the same is considered, the petitioner has to have 65% attendance, which he did not fulfil as he has only 58.66% attendance.
Therefore, the High Court concluded that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief, much less the relief sought in the present writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Case Title- Mohammed Absar Ahmed v. State of Telangana
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Tel) 11