MRIDUL GAUTAM Vs. UNIVERSITY OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER qualifying a competitive test the petitioner was admitted to three years M.B.A. (Executive) Course conducted by the respondent University. The petitioner qualified first year of the Course concerned, however, he was not permitted to appear in the second year examination, thus, seeking a direction for the respondents to permit him to face the examination, this petition for writ is preferred. As per the petitioner no reason was given by the respondents for not permitting him to appear in the examination concerned, which were to be commenced from 29.10.2009.

(2.) IN response to the notice to show cause a reply has been filed by the respondents stating therein that the petitioner was not allowed to appear in the examination as he failed to put in at least 75% attendance, as required under the University Ordinance. As per scheme of the M.B.A. (Executive) Course, no candidate shall be considered to have pursued for regular course of study, unless he/she is certified by the Director of the institute (respondent No.3) to have attended 75% of the total number of lectures, tutorials, seminars, case discussions, personality development sessions, workshops and presentations conducted in each semester during the course of study. It is also stated that this Court in SBContempt Petition No.87/97, arising out of a public interest litigation, (SBCivil Writ Petition No.455794, Damodar Prasad Goyal v. Smt. P.L. Kushwalia & Ors., decided on 24.10.1997), prescribed certain guidelines required to be adhered to ensure attendance of students to 75%. The petitioner, if would have been permitted to appear in the examination, then that would have been in contravention of the directions given by this Court. A Specific statement is also made by the respondents that by a general notice dated 6.6.2009 all the students of M.B.A. (Executive) Part-I, II and III were advised by the Director of the institution to note their attendance, in view of the fact that 75% attendance is compulsory for becoming eligible to take the University examination as a regular student. IN rejoinder the petitioner has disputed issuance of notice dated 6.6.2009 and also urged that no care and caution was taken by the institute, even as per the directions given by this Court in Damodar Prasad Goyal's case (supra) for proper maintenance of the attendance. It is asserted that before declaring the petitioner ineligible to appear in the examination concerned the respondents should have asked explanation from the petitioner and also should have given a notice being a necessary requirement of the principles of natural justice. Heard counsel for the parties.