ANIRUDH DEVANSH Vs. VILE PARLE KELWANI MANDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners in all these petitions have raised a common issue and hence the petitions are disposed of by common judgment and order. The Petitioners are students of Respondent no.2, which is managed by Respondent no.1 management and is affiliated to Respondent no.3 deemed university. The Petitioners have invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and have challenged the communication dated 22 nd November 2016 issued by Respondent no.2 debarring them from appearing in their examination as well as the order dated 31 st January 2017 passed by the Dean of Respondent no.3.

(2.) The Petitioner in Writ Petition (L) No.444 of 2017 was studying in the first semester of Master in Business Administration- Tech (Electrical) course which is of five years. He was admitted to the said course in the academic year 2015-16. However, he could not pass the said examination and was required to appear for the additional examination conducted by Respondent no.2. The results of additional examination were declared on or about 5 th August 2016. He again failed to achieve success. According to him, he had to enroll to the course only after the results were declared and therefore, missed the lectures till the date he was enrolled to the course. The course had commenced from 18 th July 2016 and he was able to obtain admission on 19th August 2016. He was not allowed to attend the lectures prior to the admission. It is contended by the said Petitioner that he was ill from 19th September 2016 to 23 rd September 2016 and despite that, made attempts to attend the lectures, but was able to attend a few lectures. He relied upon the medical certificate dated 24th September 2016. He further contended that he had to undergo mental trauma and depression and was attending counseling sessions during the period from 25 th August 2016 to 25th September 2016. He placed reliance upon medical certificate dated 15th November 2016. According to him, he attended additional compensatory lectures to compensate the loss of attendance, as the same was allowed by the faculty members but the head of the department did not sanction the additional attendance. These additional lectures were not considered. Notice dated 22 nd November 2016 was displayed on the notice board mentioning that the said Petitioner was debarred from end of semester examination and that his term will not be granted. He preferred an application to the Respondent authorities for consideration of his case by giving reasons to condone the absence. The Respondents sent letter to the parents of Petitioner and were informed that the Petitioner has not been granted term due to lack of attendance vide letter dated 19 th November 2016. It was stated that the Petitioner will have to appear for the course in the next year. Similar communication was issued on 21st November 2016. The said Petitioner preferred Writ Petition (L) No.3173 of 2016 before this Court. By an order dated 5 th January 2017, the petition was disposed of by directing the Petitioner to approach the Respondent no.1 management vide representation, which shall be decided by the management after granting hearing to the Petitioner. The Petitioner, therefore, submitted his representation dated 9th January 2017. Hearing was given to him vide letter dated 31st January 2017. The said Petitioner was informed that his case was considered and the request for grant of relaxation to continue the course was rejected as he lacks 80% attendance in two subjects, viz. Engineering Mathematics and Engineering Mechanics.

(3.) The Petitioner in Writ Petition (L) No.621 of 2017 took admission on 19th June 2015 with the Respondents for five years Master in Business Administration-Tech course. The examination of the second semester of the first year course was scheduled from 30 th June 2016 to 7th July 2016. As the results were not declared of the first semester and the second year course had started on 18 th July 2016, the Petitioner started attending the lectures. The results were declared on or about 5th August 2016. The Petitioner was unable to pass his academic year of the course. The lectures of the first semester of the first year course had already commenced on 18 th July 2016. He took re-admission for the said course on 23 rd August 2016. He attended the lectures in the first semester of the second year course from 18th July 2016 to 5th August 2016. However, he missed out the first year course lectures prior to the date of his re-admission. On account of his ill health, he was unable to attend the lectures on 29th September 2016 and 27th October 2016. He relied upon medical certificate which was submitted to the college. His grand-father expired on 3rd October 2016 and he had to go through the mental trauma on account of said loss. He did not attend the lecture on 4 th October 2016. He contended that compensatory lectures to compensate the loss of attendance were attended by him which was allowed by the faculty members but not sanctioned by the head of department. Although he attended the lectures regularly, he had to miss few lectures due to unavoidable circumstances. Notice dated 22nd November 2016 was displayed with the similar contents as stated in case of Petitioner in Writ Petition (L) No.444 of 2017. He approached the Respondent college by an application dated 26 th November 2016 by attaching the medical certificate dated 26 th November 2016 and requested to consider his case. The Respondents forwarded the letter dated 19th November 2016 to the parents of the Petitioner which is similar to the letter referred to in the earlier paragraph. The Petitioner, therefore, approached this Court by preferring Writ Petition (L) No.3173 of 2016 which was disposed of by order dated 5th January 2017 with similar order as referred to hereinabove. The Petitioner submitted a representation dated 9th January 2017. He was heard by the management. By letter dated 31st January 2017, the Petitioner was informed that the request for grant of permission to continue the course was rejected on account of lack of 80% attendance.