RUKMI B RAY Vs. COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the petitioner's learned advocate, the learned advocate who represents the R.3 College as also the learned Govt. Advocate.

(2.) The case made out is that the petitioner has been suffering from epilepsy for the last several years and that this was the reason why she was unable to obtain the minimum attendance requirement. The petitioner's learned advocate relies on a circular dt. 22-3-95 issued by the Govt. of Karnataka wherein, it has been pointed out that even in those of the cases where the student falls short of the minimum attendance requirement that if there is, a genuine, medical ground which is established to the satisfaction of the college authorities, that the head of the institution shall have the discretion to condone the short fall of attendance. Learned advocate submits that having regard to this position, that the Respondent No.3 should have condoned the short fall of attendance principally because the circular mentions that if the academic performance of the student is otherwise good, that the head of the institution can condone the short fall. Learned advocate points out to me that this girl, irrespective of her impediment has done well in her earlier exams. and that therefore, she may be permitted to take the ensuing II P.U.C. exam.2A. On behalf of the respondents, a reply has been filed wherein it has been pointed out that the petitioner's short fall is below the prescribed minimum 60% and that under the rules, the college authorities have no power to condone the short fall. Petitioner's learned advocate points out to me, and very correctly, that the principal was unaware of the circular Annex. B which has virtually come as a surprise because the rules have not been amended even though this circular may virtually water down the provisions in the rules. Apart from this, the college authorities have pointed out that the petitioner has been attending some classes and not attending others which clearly leads to the inference that she must have been attending the college all those days but still stayed away from certain lectures. It is therefore submitted that the medical ground cannot really come to the assistance of the petitioner.

(3.) In addition to this, the learned advocate who Respondents R-3 points out to me that it is the duty of a student who claims exceptional or genuine circumstances to come to the head of the institution in good time and to apply for condonation. If it is a genuine and valid case and comes within the framework of the principal's powers, the same will certainly be considered but this decision must be left to the head of the institution. I am in agreement with this submission because it is well settled law that in academic matters, decisions of this type must necessarily be left to the heads of the institutions who are presumed to act responsibly and correctly but more importantly, who are aware of all the attendant facts and take a decision after considering all those circumstances.