## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS**
**WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1942**
## **WP(C).No.11220 OF 2020(B)**
## **PETITIONER/S:**
**SREESHMA M O, AGED 27 YEARS W/O.SUDHEESH N.K., RESIDING AT SREERAM, MATHODAM, KANNADIPARAMBA PO, KANNUR-670604.**
## **BY ADV. SRI.K.ASHIS**
## **RESPONDENT/S:**
- **1 KANNUR UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, KANNUR UNIVERSITY, THAVAKKARA, CIVIL STATION (PO), KANNUR, PIN-670002.**
- **2 THE VICE CHANCELLOR, KANNUR UNIVERSITY, THAVAKKARA, CIVIL STATION (PO), KANNUR, PIN-670002.**
- **3 THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, KANNUR UNIVERSITY, THAVAKKARA, CIVIL STATION (PO), KANNUR, PIN-670002.**
- **4 THE PRINCIPAL, KANNUR SALAFI B.ED COLLEGE, VILLAGE MUKKU, PO KOODALI, KANNUR-670592. R1 BY SRI.M.SASINDRAN, SC, KANNUR UNIVERSITY**
- **OTHER PRESENT:**
**SC - SUBASH P K .**
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-07-2020, THE COURT ON 14-07-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
WP(C).No.11220 OF 2020
**==> picture [18 x 7] intentionally omitted <==**
## **JUDGMENT**
## **Dated this the 14[th] day of July 2020**
The petitioner is a 4[th] semester student of the B.Ed Course in Natural Secince in the Kannur Salafi B.Ed. College, which is affiliated to the 1[st] respondent University.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that, she was precluded from attending the classes due to the complications related to her pregnancy. The petitioner was informed that her classmates were going on a college tour in the first week of March and that she need only rejoin classes on 09.03.2020. The petitioner submitted Exhibit P-5 letter to the 4[th] respondent to be forwarded to the 3[rd] respondent, seeking condonation of shortage of attendance. Considering the petitioner's claim to be genuine, the 4[th] respondent by Exhibit P-6 letter forwarded Exhibit P-5 to the 3[rd] respondent for approval. During this interregnum period, on 10.03.2020, the
WP(C).No.11220 OF 2020
**==> picture [17 x 9] intentionally omitted <==**
Government of Kerala ordered shutting down of all schools and colleges, due to COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, no further classes were held in the University. The petitioner had resumed her studies in the college from 09.03.2020. But, the next day, the college was closed. Had there been classes as scheduled, the petitioner would have secured attendance for the classes till 31.03.2020. Although Exhibits P-5 and P6 were sent to the 3[rd] respondent, there is inaction on the part of the 3[rd] respondent. In the said circumstances, the petitioner seeks a direction to respondents 1 to 4 to condone the shortage in her attendance and permit her to appear for the examinations, which is to commence from 08.06.2020 onwards.
3. The Standing Counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent has filed a statement, inter aila, contending that Regulations of the 1[st] respondent University stipulates that a student pursuing B.Ed. programme has to secure a minimum of 80% attendance of the total
WP(C).No.11220 OF 2020
**==> picture [18 x 9] intentionally omitted <==**
working days in each semester. As per clause '9' of the B.Ed. Regulations, shortage of attendance up to 10% in each semester can be condoned by the 2[nd] respondent-the Vice Chancellor of the University, on genuine grounds. The Regulations also stipulate that a student who does not have sufficient attendance and who was prevented from attending an examination may be re-admitted in the subsequent year as a term student, with the permission of the Principal of the college and the concurrence of the University.
4. The 1[st] respondent has further contended that the application that was forwarded by the 4[th] respondentPrincipal was not in the prescribed format and without the supporting documents. Furthermore, as the petitioner's attendance shortage is beyond the condonable limit, the application was rejected by the 2[nd] respondent by Exhibit R1-(e). The said decision was communicated to the 4[th] respondent on 05.06.2020.
5. The 1[st] respondent has also contended that even
WP(C).No.11220 OF 2020
**==> picture [17 x 8] intentionally omitted <==**
going by the petitioner's application, she has only 43% attendance, which is endorsed by the 4[th] respondent. Subsequently, the petitioner has directly approached the 2[nd] respondent, claiming that she has 51% attendance. The 4[th] respndent has certified that the attendance progress certificate of the petitioner is beyond the condonable imit. In the said circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to appear and write the 4[th] semester examinations.
6. The 1[st] respondent has also relied upon the decision of this Court in **Jasmine V.G. v. Kannur University and others** [2016 (3) KHC 183], wherein this Court has held that the pregnancy of a student cannot be a reason to permit the student to deviate from the requirements of a regular course of study. Hence, the 1[st] respondent has prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.
7. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit, refuting the allegations in the statement. She has averred that
WP(C).No.11220 OF 2020
**==> picture [18 x 8] intentionally omitted <==**
she directly submitted the second application to the University, taking into account the period during which her classmates had gone on a class tour, which period need not be counted for the purpose of calculating the attendance. Therefore, she has 51% attendance as against the 43% reported by the 4[th] respondent. She has a further case that she started attending classes on 09.03.2020, but as the college was closed down due to the lockdown, the subsequent period is also to be taken into account. Then the petitioner would have an aggregate of 71.5% attendance, which falls within the condonable limit by the 2[nd] respondent. Hence, she prayed that the writ petition be allowed.
8. Heard Shri Ashish Korattyswaroopam, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri. M.Sasindran, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1[st] respondent.
9. The question pertaining to condonation of shortage of attendance is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in **Ajith**
WP(C).No.11220 OF 2020
**==> picture [17 x 8] intentionally omitted <==**
**Chandran v. University of Kerala and others** [2013 (4) KHC 392]. The Division Bench has laid down the law that it is for the head of the institution to forward the application seeking condonation of attendance to the Vice-Chancellor of the University for his consideration. Subject to the norms of the University, the ViceChancellor has the discretion to condone the shortage of attendance.
10. Undisputely, Regulation '9' of Exhibit R1-(a), the Regulations and Guidelines of the 1[st] respondent University, stipulate that a student of the B.Ed. Programme should have 80% attendance of the total working days in each semester. Shortage of attendance (in each semester) up to 10% may be condoned by the Vice Chancellor on the recommendation of the Principal of the College, on genuine grounds.
11. Admittedly, the Principal of the petitioner's college – the 4[th] respondent had forwarded Exhibit P5 application along with Exhibit P-6 recommendation,
WP(C).No.11220 OF 2020
**==> picture [18 x 8] intentionally omitted <==**
wherein it is categorically mentioned that the petitioner has only 43% attendance. Thus, even going by the certification of the 1[st] respondent, the petitioner does not have the requisite attendance as per Regulation 9(a) of Exhibit R1-(a). In the said circumstances, the 2[nd] repsondent cannot exercise its discretion to condone the shortage of attendance in view of Regulation 9(b) of Exhibit R1(a).
12. It is trite law in a catena of decisions that, this Court cannot in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, overreach the Rules and Regulations of the University, which is a specialized field.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner finally argued that the petitioner may be permitted to make another representation before the University, to point out the fact that the petitioner was prevented to attend classes due to the lock-down. In view of Exhibit R1-(a) Regulations and Guidelines and the certification made by the 4[th] respondent, I do not think the petitioner can be
WP(C).No.11220 OF 2020
**==> picture [18 x 9] intentionally omitted <==**
permitted to re-agitate the whole issue again and start a second round of litigation, especially when the facts are undoubtedly unambiguous.
14. Taking into account the above facts and circumstances of the case and the law declared in **Ajith Chandran v University of Kerala and others** (cited supra), and on finding that there is no malice or arbitrariness in the rejection of Exhibits P-5 and P-6, I am of the firm opinion that no grounds have been made out warranting interference by this Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to direct the respondents to consider Exhibits P-5 and P-6, as Exhibit R1-(e) decision has already been taken rejecting the same.
In the result, this writ petition fails and is consequently dismissed.
Sd/-
**C.S.DIAS**
**JUDGE**
kkj
WP(C).No.11220 OF 2020
..10..
## **APPENDIX**
**PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:**
- **EXHIBIT P1**
**A TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY BHARATHIAR UNIVERSITY FOR B.SC. BIOTECHNOLOGY.**
- **EXHIBIT P2**
**A TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE KANNUR UNIVERSITY FOR M.SC. BIOTECHNOLOGY.**
- **EXHIBIT P3**
- **A TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE CARD OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY FATHIMA HOSPITAL, KANNUR.**
- **EXHIBIT P4**
**A TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY DR.HARIPRASAD K. FOR THE PETITIONER.**
- **EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER OF THE PETITIONER TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT FOR CONDONING THE SHORTAGE IN ATTENDANCE DATED 4.3.2020.**
- **EXHIBIT P6**
**A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT FORWARDING P-6 TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT.**
**EXHIBIT P7**
- **A TRUE COPY OF THE TIME TABLE FOR THE FOURTH SEMESTER EXAMS.**
