K MANONMANI Vs. REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed to quash the order of the second respondent date 14.2.2002 informing the petitioner to repeat the field work of I year M.S.W. programme during the academic year 2002-2003 and for a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue II year M.S.W. programme.

(2.) The facts of the case giving rise to the present writ petition briefly stated are as follows :- The petitioner after completion of her graduation in Sociology, applied for M.S.W. programme in Madras School of Social Work for the academic year 2001-2003 and she was admitted in the said course. As per the norms, to complete the first year, such a student is required to to field work including 40 days, i.e. hours of concurrent field work. The petitioner had joined Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board for doing the aforesaid field work. During the period of concurrent field work, the petitioner could not attend field work for a few days due to entric fever and subsequent relapses and thereafter she joined the field work. However, on 14.2.2002, the second respondent issued a letter indicating that the petitioner had lost 35% of field work days with regard to concurrent field work of M.S.W. programme and therefore, she was required to repeat the concurrent field work programme during the academic year 2002-2003 and only thereafter she would be permitted to undergo II year of M.S.W. programme. The petitioner on 6.2.2002 gave a letter indicating about 10 days of absence by calculating Christmas and Ponal holidays along with working days and subsequently again she wrote another letter on 27.3.2002 indicating that she had missed only 5 days of field work and she should be allowed to attend viva-voce to be held on 11.4.2002. As per the Rules, if a student misses the field work upto 20%, can be permitted to compensate for the missed days by working on other days, but the petitioner has been deprived of such an opportunity. The petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to permit her to complete the field work and continue in II year of M.S.W. programme.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the second respondent denying the allegations made in the writ petition. It has been indicated in the counter that on her own showing, the petitioner had missed 10 days of field work and since the absence was for a period of about 35%, as per the Rules, there was no scope of condoning the absence of the petitioner. Even the Medical Certificate furnished by the petitioner regarding her illness has been doubted in the counter.