S ANBARASAN Vs. UNIVERSITY OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges an order of the University of Madras (lst respondent) dated 27-1-90 by which his result in B.E. Degree Examination in April, 1989 is treated as cancelled.

(2.) The petitioner joined the second respondent college in 1985 in Civil Engineering. Due to shortage in attendance, he was not allowed to appear for the Examination, and the petitioner came by way of writ petition No. 5252 of 1989 before this Court, and by order in W.M.P. No. 7702 of 1989, the petitioner was alleged to write the Final Examination commencing on 17-4-89, and it was made clear in that order that the results of the Examination should await the decision of the lst respondent on the representation to be made by the petitioner to the lst respondent explaining certain facts. In pursuance of that, the petitioner made representation on 2-5-89 and 13-7-89. The main contention of the petitioner is that he was really attending to the project work, and if those days are taken into account, he will not be lacking in attendance. The petitioner received a letter on 30-9-89 that his representation was considered by the Syndicate and it was decided not to condone the shortage of attendance, and his results will be withheld. The petitioner preferred another writ petition, in writ petition No. 14693 of 1989 challenging the above order. Srinivasan J., by order dated 17-11-89, permitted the petitioner to file a detailed representation to the first respondent-University and directed the University to reconsider the representation without reference to the earlier orders. Accordingly the petitioner made a further representation on 18-11-89 and the substance of this representation was that nearly 20 days had been spent by the petitioner and some other classmates for working in the project of planning the Designing of Hospital Buildings, and as such, if those 20 days were included, he would not be lacking in attendance. However, the University (lst respondent) sent a communication dated 27-1-90 rejecting his representation, holding that the examination written by the petitioner in April, 1989 will be treated as cancelled, against which the petitioner has come up to this Court with the present writ petition.

(3.) The lst respondent --- University has filed a counter-affidavit wherein it is clearly stated that the lst respondent-University has taken into consideration the 20 days the petitioner had spent on project work when arriving at the decision that the petitioner is lacking in attendance. It is stated that the resolution by the University not to condone the lack of attendance was passed only after taking into consideration all the facts placed before it and based on the merits of the representation of the petitioner, and not in the manner as alleged by the petitioner in the affidavit. It is true that the principal of the college can recommend condonation for shortage of attendance from 62.5% to 75% of the total number of working days. But in this case, the petitioner had only 49% which is far below 62.5%.