B MOHAN PILLAI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Appeal is filed against the Judgment dated 25.7.2007 in Writ Petition No.11568/2007 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant is the petitioner in the Writ Petition and the respondents are the respondents in the Writ Petition.

(2.) THE appellant was a student of Standard X in the K.L.E. Society's M.R. Sakhare English Medium School, Vidyanagar, Hubli during the academic year 2006-07. Since the appellant did not have the minimum attendance to appear in the SSLC examination commencing on 21.3.2007, he filed Writ Petition No. 4335/2007 -praying for a direction to the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') to issue Hall ticket to the petitioner for the SSLC examination to be conducted from 21-3-2007 or, in the alternative, to direct the Board to treat the petitioner as an external student and allow him to appear in the SSLC examination to be conducted from 21-3-2007. In view of the submission of the Government Advocate that if the petitioner files a proper representation enclosing relevant materials in support of his case to condone the deficiency of attendance, the Board will consider the same and pass orders, the High Court disposed of Writ Petition No. 4335/2007 permitting the petitioner to file the representation enclosing all relevant data necessary for the purpose of condoning the deficiency in attendance and directing the Board to consider the representation and to pass orders forthwith. Accordingly, the appellant filed a representation dated 17-3-2007 praying to condone the deficiency of attendance and to permit him to appear in the SSLC examination. THE said representation was disposed of by the Board on 17-3-2007 itself rejecting the request of the appellant. THE request was rejected on the ground that the Board had taken a policy decision not to condone the deficiency of attendance above 30 days. THEreupon the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 7515/2007 challenging the order dated 17-3-2007 of the Board. By an interim order passed in the Writ Petition, the High Court directed the Board to allow the appellant to appear in SSLC Supplementary examination held in May, 2007. However it was directed that the result need be announced only after the disposal of the Writ Petition. On the basis of the interim order passed by the High Court, the appellant was allowed to appear in the SSLC Supplementary examination. Later, Writ Petition No. 7515/ 2007 was disposed of by the High Court on 26-6-2007 quashing the impugned order dated 17-3-2007 and directing the Board to reconsider the case of the appellant under Regulation 37(3) of the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board First Regulations, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations'). It was also observed that if the decision was in favour of the appellant, he would be entitled for declaration of his results of the S.S.L.C. Supplementary Examination. THE Board reconsidered the case of the appellant under Regulation 37(3). It was found that out of the total number of 210 working days during academic year 2006-07, the appellant had attended the school only on 42 days. THE Board took the view that minimum attendance is fixed to learn the subjects in the school directly through the teachers and to earn capacity to take examination. If the student is unable to attend the school, he cannot reach the minimum standard of learning. According to the Board, even though the appellant could not attend the school due to ill-health, he could not achieve the goal of learning. Hence the Board held that the appellant was not eligible to appear in the SSLC Supplementary examination held in the month of May-2007 and declined to condone the deficiency of attendance of 116 days. THE request of the appellant was rejected by the Board as per Annexure-A order dated 6.7.2007.

(3.) FROM the provisions contained in Regulation-37, it is clear that the minimum attendance required for a student of Standard X is 75% of the total number of working days. Admittedly, the appellant had attended the school only on 42 days out of the total number of 210 working days. To satisfy the requirement of minimum attendance, the appellant should have attended school on 157.5 working days. Thus there was a deficiency of attendance of 115.50 days.