M. SHEIKA ABDULLA AND ORS. Vs. THE CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF EXAMINATIONS, DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are the students of the second respondent Institution by pursuing their Diploma course. The petitioners in WP.No. 10310, 10312 and 10313 of 2014 are in the final year and the other two writ petitioners, in WP.No. 10311 and 10314 of 2014 are in the second year.

(2.) THE petitioners in all these writ petitions seek for a direction to permit them to complete the Course for the Diploma in Mechanical Engineering in respect of the academic year 2013 -2014. At the time when the writ petitions were entertained, interim direction was issued on 09.4.2014 stating that though the petitioners are lacking in 80% attendance, considering the fact that they are facing examination on next day i.e. 10.4.2014, this Court directed them to write examination with further direction, that results will not be published and it will be subject to the writ petitions and that they will not claim any equity. The petitioners' contention is that Attendance Register has not been properly maintained by the Institution and the information has been given to the first respondent by an unqualified person and the person who has passed his B.E. only in December 2013, has been appointed as Head of the Department. Hence, it is submitted that the attendance has not been properly recorded. Subsequently, after the examinations were written, the petitioners were not permitted to proceed further and this Court has passed another interim direction on 19.9.2014 observing that the second respondent, based on written information given to the first respondent by an unqualified person, has not permitted the petitioners to appear for examination and, therefore, a direction was issued to the first respondent to conduct an inquiry into the affairs of the second respondent on the maintenance of Attendance Register, qualification of the person, who is maintaining the Attendance Register, who is supposed to be the Head of the Department and submit a report within two weeks. Without prejudice to the right of the second respondent to contest the claim of the petitioners, the petitioners were permitted to write the examination with specific observation that the results will be subject to further orders to be passed by this Court.

(3.) IN the report, it is further stated that the petitioners have individually given the letters stating that they are aware of the Board Rules and would not be allowed to write Board Examination if there is a shortage of attendance. As per the direction of this Court, details of the Principal of the first respondent College and HODs which were maintained were produced. Further, the report states that as per the Board of Studies and Board Rules 3.2, a candidate will be permitted to appear for the Board Examinations only if he/she secures 80% attendance in the semester concerned and as per Rule 3.3, condoning of 5% shortage of attendance shall be given on genuine and valid reasons subject to the conditions that he /she satisfies all the other requirements. Further, it is stated that under no circumstances, a candidate with attendance less than 75%, will be permitted to write Board Examination. Even though they were not eligible due to shortage of attendance, because of the interim direction of this Court, they were allowed to write examination. Further particulars as well as the letters written by the five petitioners along with report were also produced.