Writ Petition (L) No. 908 of 2016. Case: Nikita Garg and Ors. Vs Vile Parle Kelwani Mandal and Ors.. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition (L) No. 908 of 2016 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate i/b. Sariputta Sarnath, Adv. and For Respondents: Manorama Mohanty i/b. S.K. Srivastav & Co. |
| Judges | M. S. Sanklecha and A. K. Menon, JJ. |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Article 226 |
| Judgement Date | March 31, 2016 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
A. K. Menon, J.
-
This is a Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the decision for Respondent No. 1 to 3 and the Respondent No. 5, University of Mumbai debarring the Petitioners from appearing in the Third Year B.Com (T.Y.B. Com) examination to be held by Respondent No. 5 commencing from 1st April, 2016.
-
The Petition was filed on 28th March, 2016 and was mentioned before us on 29th March, 2016 due to the inability of the regular Bench to take up the matter. Accordingly the matter was heard on 30th March, 2016 when only the University of Mumbai was represented, no notice having been served on the College authorities the petition was taken up for urgent hearing today 31st March, 2016. We have since heard the counsel on behalf of the parties. The impugned decision of the Respondents debarring the petitioners from appearing for the T.Y.B. Com examination to be conducted by Respondent No. 5 and the consequent withdrawal of the T.Y.B. Com examination forms of the students has its genesis in an Ordinance issued by Respondent No. 5-University of Mumbai whereby it was necessary for all students covered by the Ordinance to have secured atleast 75% attendance on an average, subject to a mandatory 50% minimum attendance in each semester.
-
The Petitioners are 56 in number and it is the grievance of the Petitioners that they have good attendance and they have good academic record in the previous semester and hence they should be allowed to appear for the semester examinations. They have relied upon mark sheets of about nine Petitioners from the previous semester in support of their contention. The second semester we are informed, commenced on 16th November, 2015 and the classes ended on 3rd March, 2016. The final semester examination to be conducted by Respondent No. 5 from 1st April, 2016. It is the case of the Petitioners that on 27th February, 2016 which was the day of their farewell, rumour had it that students having low attendance would not be allowed to appear for the ensuing examinations but there was no official communication received. It was only on 10th March, 2016 that the College uploaded on their website a list of students with low attendance. According to the Petitioners, out of the requisite number of 320 lectures to be conducted the College had conducted 276 lectures. The shortfall in attendance was recorded in respect of these 276 lectures. The Petitioners were required to have attended at least 50% of these lectures and it is their case that they fell short of the required 50% average attendance by "narrow margin".
-
According to the Petitioners they have submitted all relevant documents in support of their individual cases to demonstrate their inability to attend sufficient number of lectures but the Respondent did not consider the documents including medical certificates and rejected their claims seeking condonation of shortfall in attendance. On 16th March, 2016 the College informed the Petitioners regarding withdrawal of their examination forms and intimated the Petitioners as per Ordinance No. 6086 that the Petitioners could approach the Controller of examinations and the committee appointed by the Controller to take a decision in the matter. The Ordinance provides that students could approach the said Committee which would consider their case and either agree or disagree with the decision of the College to withdraw the examination forms.
-
In the instant case, the Petitioners have relied upon a tabulated form appearing at Exhibit G, of the petition, reproducing the names of 56 Petitioners, their percentages of attendance and the reason for low attendance. The attendance recorded in respect of these 56 Petitioners were all below 50%. They range from 6.14% in the case of Petitioner No. 21 to 47.29% in the case of Petitioner No. 51. Various other Petitioners have recorded attendance, between these two figures. The grievance of the Petitioner is that after having appealed to the University of Mumbai, on 18th March, 2016 the University released the results of the appeal in which it was found that out of a total number of 87 students who have applied for reconsideration of their respective cases in only 24 cases the University had approved the reasons given for shortfall in attendance and had permitted these 24 students to appear for the examination. As far as remaining students are concerned, they were debarred from appearing in the examination. It is the Petitioners case that after receiving the aforesaid intimation they wrote to the Vice Chancellor of the Respondent No. 5- University seeking his intervention but to no avail.
-
Mr. Desai, the learned Senior Advocate, who appeared before us on behalf of the Petitioners submitted that the case of the Petitioners is not without a precedent. He made three submissions. According to Mr. Desai no reasons have been given either by the College authorities or by the University for their decision to debar the students. Secondly, some students who had approached the Appellate Authority pursuant to...
To continue reading
Request your trial