High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-06-16Disposed of with directions; no costs.

Ahalya Ka. v. Kannur University

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).Nos. 29242/2015 (E), 31154/2015 & 17886/2016

Neutral Citation:null

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Vinod Chandran
Judgment Date: 2016-06-16
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petitions are disposed of with directions. The petitioners’ third-semester examination results will not be published. The University shall permit the petitioners to enroll back in the third semester course and continue the program, with a view to later appearing for the third-semester examinations upon acquiring the necessary attendance. If the petitioners clear the third-semester examinations, their continuation in the fourth semester will be regularised; otherwise, they must again sit for the third semester examinations and re-enroll in the fourth semester with the requisite attendance. No costs.
Final Disposition: Disposed of with directions; no costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Ahalya Ka.

Respondents

Kannur University represented by the Vice Chancellor, Kannur University
Registrar of Education, Kannur University
Controller of Examinations, Kannur University
Director, School of Health Sciences, Kannur University, Thalassery Campus

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri P.S. Anishad
• Smt. Limna Bhaskaran

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Viju Thomas, Standing Counsel (SC), Kannur University
• Sri V.A. Muhammed, Standing Counsel (SC), Kannur University

Case Synopsis & Summary

Ahalya Ka., a student admitted to the M.Sc. Medical Microbiology course at Kannur University, challenged the University’s refusal to allow her to sit for the Part II, 3rd semester examination due to attendance shortfalls attributed to pregnancy. The matter was heard along with W.P.C Nos. 29242/2015, 31154/2015 and 17886/2016, all concerning similarly situated students. The court examined the University regulations, which cap attendance condonation at ten days and permit it only twice in a course. The petitioners argued that pregnancy constitutes a welfare-based exception, akin to maternity leave in employment, and urged the court to condone the absence on that ground to enable them to complete the course, having largely complied with other requirements. Relying on Jasmine v. State of Kerala (2016) 2 KLT 851, the court held that pregnancy cannot be a ground for condonation of attendance shortages and that academic regulations bind both students and the institution. It rejected equating pregnancy with the service-employment context and emphasized that a structured education system cannot grant equitable relief by treating pregnancy as a mere sabbatical. The court noted that if relief is allowed, it would undermine the regulatory framework and quality of education. Interim relief had been granted earlier, but the final directions require the petitioners to re-enter the 3rd semester with attendance, and, if eligible, proceed to the 4th semester with appropriate adjustments. The writ petitions were disposed of with no costs.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Pregnancy cannot be a ground for condonation of attendance shortage (as held in Jasmine v. State of Kerala, 2016 (2) KLT 851).
A student cannot be allowed to keep away from regular courses in a structured system of education and then be permitted to appear for the examinations as an equitable measure.
University regulations bind the institution and the student, and strict adherence to attendance norms is essential to maintain educational quality and integrity.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argued that they complied with all other course requirements and that the sole impediment to appearing in the examinations was pregnancy. They urged condonation of attendance shortfalls under the University regulations, arguing that maternity leave is an accepted welfare measure in employment and should be extended to students, so as not to penalize them for pregnancy. They contended that the regulationally prescribed ten days of condonation, limited to two instances, should be interpreted with flexibility in pregnancy cases to avoid deprivation of education. The petitioners maintained that the educational process and future prospects require humane consideration, especially since they had nearly completed the syllabus and demonstrated compliance with other requirements.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that the University’s attendance regulations are binding and must be strictly enforced. Condonation is capped at ten days and can be claimed only twice in a course; extending it beyond these limits would undermine curriculum discipline and educational quality. They argued that pregnancy cannot be treated as a ground for condonation to circumvent attendance deficiencies, as this would constitute special treatment incompatible with academic norms. They asserted that pregnancy in studies cannot be equated with maternity leave in employment, since the institution does not suffer the same form of loss, while the student would gain an advantage by remaining away from classes. They noted that interim relief was discretionary and contingent on the petition outcome, and that the court should respect the regulatory framework, requiring petitioners to repeat or re-enter the third semester with the requisite attendance, and then proceed to the fourth semester only upon meeting attendance requirements.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Jasmine v. State of Kerala	2016 (2) KLT 851	Positive	The court explicitly relies on Jasmine to hold that pregnancy cannot be a ground for condonation of attendance shortage.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Ahalya Ka. v. Kannur University and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** ## **THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/26TH JYAISHTA, 1938** **WP(C).No. 29242 of 2015 (E) ----------------------------** ## **PETITIONER:** ## **-----------** **AHALYA KA.** **RAMANEEYAM HOUSE, KODAKKAD P.O. MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676 319.** **BY ADVS.SRI.P.S.ANISHAD SMT.LIMNA BHASKARAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **-------------** **1. THE KANNUR UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY THE VICE CHANCELLOR, KANNUR - 670001.** **2. THE REGISTRAR OF EDUCATION KANNUR UNIVERSITY, KANNUR - 670001.** **3. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION KANNUR UNIVERSITY, KANNUR - 670001.** **4. THE DIRECTOR SCHOOL OF HEALTH SCIENCES, KANNUR UNIVERSITY, THALASSERY CAMPUS, PALAYAD P.O., THALASSERY, KANNUR - 670 671.** **R1-R3 BY ADV. SRI.VIJU THOMAS, SC, KANNUR UNIVERSITY R BY SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED, SC, KANNUR UNIVERSITY** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-06-2016, ALONG WITH WPC 31154/2015 AND ANOTHER THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C).No. 29242 of 2015 (E)** ## **----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **----------------------EXT.P-1: A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 14.9.2015 EXT.P-2: A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM THE KOZHIKODE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL, DATED 7.8.15 EXT.P-3: A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 10.8.15 EXT.P-4: A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 18.8.15 EXT.P-5: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD OF THE IST RESPONDENT EXT.P-6: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P-7: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS -----------------------** ## **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **JJJ** ## **K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.** ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) Nos. 29242 & 31154 of 2015 & W.P.(C) No. 17886 of 2016 -----------------------------------------Dated: 16[th] June, 2016 ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioners were admitted to M.Sc. Medical Microbiology course having a duration of three years. The first year is classified as preliminary and the 1[st] and 2[nd] semesters as Part I and then, the 3[rd] and 4[th] semesters as Part III; conducted in the next respective two years. 2. The petitioners were persons who were carrying on the 3[rd] semester of Part II in the third year. The petitioners had shortage of attendance and they were declined from participating in the examination of the Part II- 3[rd] semester. The petitioners challenge the same before this Court in W.P.(C) Nos.29242/2015 and **W.P.(C) Nos.29242 & 31154/2015 & 17886/2016** **-2-** 31154/2015. The petitioner in the former had 53% of attendance and the latter had 49% of attendance. Both the petitioners raise the very same contention of they being disabled from attending classes for reason of their conception. 3. The petitioners claim that they had complied with all the other formalities of the course and hence they could be granted condonation of attendance due to the reason of pregnancy. This Court has already held in **Jasmine v. State of Kerala - 2016 (2) KLT 851** that pregnancy cannot be a ground for condonation of attendance shortage. The decision would squarely apply here. 4. Further, it is to be noticed that the condonation permissible by the regulations of the University is for ten days. Condonation also can be claimed only for two times in a course and at a stretch, **W.P.(C) Nos.29242 & 31154/2015 & 17886/2016** **-3-** for ten days. The University definitely cannot go against its regulations and permit condonation of attendance shortage beyond the period stipulated in the regulations. This Court also would not go against the regulations for reason only of the fact that the petitioners have absented from classes on the ground of their pregnancy. As has been held in the afore cited decision, the petitioners can only be treated as having taken a sabbatical from regular studies and they would be required to repeat the course and acquire the required attendance before being permitted to appear for the exams. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would argue that leave on grounds of maternity is an accepted practice, even in service and the employer is also obliged to pay salary for the period spent on maternity **W.P.(C) Nos.29242 & 31154/2015 & 17886/2016** **-4-** leave. The same welfare measure extended to women in service, should also be extended to them in studies; is the argument. This court is not prepared to accept the said contention. The incidence of service and the requirement in a regular course of study cannot be equated. While in employment, the grant of maternity leave is a statutory mandate which the employer definitely has to comply with; even to his or her disadvantage, of not having the services of such woman employee; when payment of salary is made. That is a definite advantage conferred on the employee who has to remain out of employment only for reason of her pregnancy. However in studies, if a student keeps away from classes, on the ground of pregnancy, then disadvantage is to that student. The University definitely does not suffer any disadvantage but it has to go by its regulations which have a binding nature on the **W.P.(C) Nos.29242 & 31154/2015 & 17886/2016** **-5-** University and the student. Such regulations are also made to ensure the quality of education and the degree offered; on completion of studies; upon which the Society acts. A student cannot be allowed to keep away from the regular courses in a structured system of education and then be permitted to appear for the examinations as a equitable measure. 6. The petitioners were granted an interim order in the writ petitions, by which the petitioners were permitted to sit for the examination, and attend the fourth semester classes, but, however, provisionally and subject to the result of the writ petition. In fact, the Kannur University had filed an appeal from the interim order, in which the Division Bench had held that the interlocutory order is not liable to be interfered with, since it was only a discretionary measure rendered in **W.P.(C) Nos.29242 & 31154/2015 & 17886/2016** **-6-** writ jurisdiction, on the basis of prima facie case and balance of convenience. It was also held so: “If the writ petition ultimately succeeds and the writ petitioner did not have such an interlocutory relief, the consequence can be easily visualised as one that would be disastrous to the student” 7. As a corollary, the consequences, if the petitioner is not entitled to the relief in the writ petition, also would ensue with all force and vigor; if the writ petition is eventually dismissed. This Court having considered the issue and found the writ petition to be devoid of merit, the permission granted to appear for the 3[rd] semester examination would be of no consequence and the results would be permanently withheld. **W.P.(C) Nos.29242 & 31154/2015 & 17886/2016** **-7-** 8. W.P.(C) No.17886/2016 was filed by both the petitioners, seeking for admittance to the 4[th] semester examination. The petitioners admittedly had attendance in the 4[th] semester and was not dis-entitled to participate in the 4[th] semester examination for reason of any attendance shortage. The learned Standing Counsel for the University, however, points out that the students can be promoted to the 4[th] semester only if they qualify in the 3[rd] semester examinations. Considering the fact the petitioners have completed the 4[th] semester course with requisite attendance and also appeared in the examination, the following directions are issued to adjust equities and not to unduly prejudice the students. **W.P.(C) Nos.29242 & 31154/2015 & 17886/2016** **-8-** 9. The writ petition having been dismissed, the petitioners' result of the 3[rd] semester examination will not be published. The University would permit the petitioners to enroll back in the 3[rd] semester course and the petitioners would be entitled to continue the course and in the event of acquiring sufficient attendance, would also be permitted to appear for the 3[rd] semester examination. If on such appearance, at the first instance itself, the petitioners qualify the 3[rd] semester examinations, then the petitioners' continuance in the 4[th] semester and the appearance in that examination shall be regularised. The results of the 4[th] semester examinations shall be published, if the petitioners at the first instance itself, clears the 3[rd] semester examinations. If not, the petitioners would have to again sit for the third semester exams and then enroll back in the 4[th] semester also and appear for the 4[th] **W.P.(C) Nos.29242 & 31154/2015** **& 17886/2016** **-9-** semester examinations with the requisite attendance. In that event the results of the 4[th] semester exam participated in, on the strength of the interim order will also be permanently withheld. The writ petitions are disposed of with the above directions. No costs. Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE jjj 17/6/16