NEELESH G. Vs. PRINCIPAL, ST. JOSEPH'S COLLEGE OF COMMERCE AND THE BANGALORE UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents. The brief facts are as follows: The petitioner is a student of Bachelor of Business Management Course in the first respondent - college. It is his grievance that he had joined the course and was assigned the Register No. 11SJCCB101 for the academic year 2011 -12. As per the curricula prescribed by the first respondent, the Continuous Internal Assessment examinations, constitute three papers, namely, one for 10 marks, the second for 10 marks and the third for 30 marks. A student has to secure sufficient marks along with End Semester Examination, which is of 50 marks and obtain a minimum of 40 marks in both the examinations together, for a pass. The petitioner's contention is that he has completed the I Semester in October 2011, but he is shown to have secured 17 marks in the End Semester Examination and only 7 marks out of 50 marks in the Continuous Internal Examination, in the subject Organisational Behavior of the I Semester and therefore, the total marks secured by him is shown as 24 and hence he was held not to have completed the I Semester, because he had not attempted the second paper for 10 marks as he was shown as 'absent' for the said paper. It is the petitioner's case that apparently, the College had lost or misplaced the third Continuous Internal Assessment examination Paper, which was for 30 marks. The petitioner had secured a high Second Class in the II Semester examination conducted in April 2012, but he could appear or the I Semester Supplementary Examination only in the III Semester, in June to October 2012. But, in the written examination, he had secured a second class. When the III Semester commenced, the petitioner had visited London School of Economics, London through the first respondent - college for a three week Short -Term Summer Course. It is the claim of the petitioner that the first respondent - College did not conduct the Continuous Internal Assessment examination for the I Semester. The petitioner was prevented from attending the classes on the ground that he had not completed his I Semester. It is at that stage that the present writ petition was filed. By virtue of an interim order granted, the petitioner was permitted to attend the classes. He was even permitted to take the V Semester examination. However, the results were withheld and they continue to be withheld. The petitioner is now prevented from attending the VI Semester classes, which had commenced on 11th November 2013 on the footing that he has several papers in backlog, including the I Semester Continuous Internal Assessment examination paper, which according to the petitioner, was taken by him, but the answer script has been lost by the College. It is in this background that the present petition is taken up for final hearing.

(2.) THE respondent - college has entered appearance and has filed statement of objections vehemently disputing the contention of the petitioner insofar as his claim that he had taken the Continuous Internal Examination of the I Semester and that the College had lost the paper. On the other hand, the first respondent - College has produced the attendance sheet pertaining to the examination that was conducted on 3.8.2011, on which date, the Continuous Internal Assessment examination pertaining to the I Semester was conducted and the petitioner was shown marked 'absent' and therefore, it is painful for the college to be accused of having misplaced or lost the papers, when in fact he had not attended the examination and he was marked as 'absent'. The complaint of the petitioner - College is that it had proceeded purely in accordance with the Regulations governing the course and has drawn attention to the relevant Regulations in holding that it has no animosity or prejudice against the petitioner, who is just another student of the college and the institution is very much concerned with discipline and adherence to the rule, in holding that the petitioner cannot be permitted to hold the institution to ransom by having approached this court and having made wild allegations against the institution, notwithstanding that there is no material produced to indicate that he had attended the examination and that there was a possibility or a presumption of the answer paper of the petitioner having been misplaced. On the other hand, as there is material produced by the institution to show that the petitioner had remained absent, there is absolutely no substance in the present petition and it ought to be dismissed with exemplary costs having regard to the serious allegations which are not borne out by the material produced in support of the petition and hence, the learned Counsel seeks summary dismissal of the petition. Given the circumstance that the petitioner is now on the verge of completing his course and notwithstanding the controversy that is raised as to whether or not the petitioner had taken the Continuous Internal Assessment examination of the I Semester, since the petitioner has a backlog paper of the III Semester, which paper he would be taking only in 2014 and as the Regulations do not permit a student from attempting the odd Semester examination and even Semester examinations together and having regard to the year in which the petitioner has joined the course, he can only take the III Semester in the next year and since, in any event, he would not be completing the course without completing the III Semester examination, no prejudice or injustice would be caused if the petitioner is directed to take the Continuous Internal Assessment of the I Semester for 30 marks. As there is a controversy as to whether or not the petitioner had actually taken the examination, without entering into that controversy, if the petitioner is permitted to take the Continuous Internal Assessment Examination paper for the I Semester along with his backlog paper of the III Semester, interests of justice would be met. Accordingly, the petition is allowed in part. The allegations against the college are found to be baseless. However, the first respondent - college shall permit the petitioner to take the Continuous Internal Assessment paper of the I Semester examination along with the backlog papers of the III Semester in 2014. The petitioner shall be permitted to attend the VI Semester classes forthwith. With that direction, the petition stands disposed of.