RISHABH SHEONK Vs. JAMIA MILIA ISLAMIA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks directions to direct the respondents to permit them to appear in the BDS Second Year (Supplementary) Examinations.

(2.) THE controversy involved in the present case is that the petitioners have been deprived of appearing in the second year annual examinations due to shortage of attendance and now are seeking a direction for permitting them to appear in the supplementary examinations.

(3.) OPPOSING the present petition, Ms. Jaya Goyal, counsel for the respondent states that as per the rules of Jamia Milia Islamia respondent no.1 herein and Dental Council Regulations respondent no.2 herein, the petitioners are required to secure minimum 75% attendance in the exam going subjects and 70% attendance in non -exam going subjects. Counsel also submits that the petitioners were duly informed by the respondent through notice dated 14.6.2011 that they were detained due to the shortage of attendance. Counsel also submits that the other students who are detained due to the shortage of attendance have already rejoined the second year of BDS course. Counsel also submits that the course of BDS commenced from 2.8.2010 and the regular classes were held up to 31st July, 2011 and as a compassionate measure, the respondent had also conducted extra classes for the benefit of those students who were short of attendance. The contention of the counsel for the respondent is that the petitioners had even failed to attend all the extra classes as were held for the said purpose. Counsel further submits that even the parents of the petitioners were duly informed about the status of the attendance of these petitioners vide Notice dated 10.2.2011 and 2.5.2011. Counsel further submits that so far the plea raised by the petitioners that they were entitled to the grant of 15% relaxation in their attendance because of their participation in the extra curricular activities is concerned, counsel submits that no such request was made by the petitioners and it is for the first time that the petitioners have urged such a ground after they have failed to secure the minimum percentage of attendance. Counsel also submits that the representations made by the petitioners were also considered by the Vice Chancellor of the respondent university and he did not find any merit or substance in the said representations made by the petitioners. Counsel also submits that even after giving benefit of extra classes to these petitioners, they still failed to make upto 75% of the attendance.