ARUN. A. Vs. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, THE REGISTRAR, THE HEAD OF DEPARTMENT, DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH AND COMPARATIVE LITERATURE AND THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a M. Phil student, who failed to obtain the requisite attendance to sit for the End Semester Examination of the 1st Semester course in English & Comparative Literature. The petitioner's contention is that the examination was scheduled on 3.4.2013 and on the morning, at 9.55 a.m., he was served with Exhibit P1 notice, informing the shortage in attendance and declining permission to appear in the examinations. The petitioner contended, through Exhibit P5 representation that as against 75% attendance prescribed, he had 63% and that, further, he had been laid up for 6 days, as is evidenced by Exhibit P3 medical certificate. The petitioner also had a further contention that he had attended the 17th International Film Festival of Kerala between 7th to 14th December, 2012, with permission of the Department and the Principal; which comprises a part of the course which he is undergoing. On these contentions the writ petition has been filed, seeking a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear for the End Semester Examinations of 1st Semester M. Phil course or in the alternative, to direct consideration of Exhibit P5 representation. The official respondents have filed a statement, through its Standing Counsel, contending that in Arts (Humanities) as per Chapter XV, Clause 3(a) of Central University of Kerala Statute, 75% of attendance is required for entitling a candidate to sit for the examination. With respect to the claim of the petitioner that he had participated in an International Film Festival as part of his curriculum, it is specifically contended that the programme mandates that the research work can be commenced and continued only with the recommendation of the Supervisor from the 2nd Semester onwards and the participation in the Film Festival in the 1st Semester would not be a part of the curriculum.

(2.) EVEN going by the averments of the petitioner, there is nothing to indicate that the participation in the Film Festival was a part of the curriculum or that he had done so on the express permission granted by the Principal or the Head of the Department. He merely relies on Exhibit P2 certificate issued by the Secretary of the Academy which conducted the Film Festival. Again, looking at Exhibit P3, there is nothing to show that the medical certificate had been produced before the College at the time of his absence of 6 days from 30.11.2012. In fact, going by the specific averments contained in Exhibit P5, the petitioner's contention is that he would have produced the certificate of leave if he had been informed of the shortage of attendance. The petitioner who had enrolled for the M. Phil course is expected to ensure that he has the required attendance as per the programme schedule and he cannot later on contend that he was never informed of the shortage; which had occurred by his own absence. It is also pertinent that the examination itself had commenced on 3.4.2013 and the petitioner approached this Court after 5 months, on 3.9.2013, with the above writ petition. For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner was not entitled to sit for the examination, since he did not have the required attendance and had not sought for condonation of the shortage of attendance within the time stipulated, i.e., before the examination commenced. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is devoid of merit and the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for.