PURBASHA GHOSH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition has been preferred by petitioners for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction on respondents to show cause as to why they (petitioners) be not allowea to appear in the examination of 2nd semester of 1st year which is being conducted by the 4th respondent. Further prayer has been made to direct the concerned respondents to take re -examination of the petitioners both of theory and practical papers of 2nd semester of 1st year, immediately and forthwith with further prayer to quash the letter No. IDTR/JSR/TRG/15/27 dated 31st July, 2003 issued to their parents, whereby and whereunder ihey have been informed that the petitioners are not being allowed to appear in the examination due to shortage of percentage.

(2.) THE petitioners are the students of Diploma course, namely, Diploma in Tool Die Making (hereinafter referred to as the 'DTDM ') in Indo Danish Tool Room (hereinafter referred to as the 'IDTR ') i.e. the 4th respondent. According to petitioner, the IDTR was established under the technical cooperation between the Government of India, Government of Denmark and the then Government of Bihar (now Government of Jharkhand). It was established as Government Owned Society. The body is financially and administratively dominated by and is under the control of the Government and thereby is a State within Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submitted that if 80% of the attendance is necessary for appearing in the end semester examination, then automatic permissible limit of absent is 20% i.e. 25 days in this case. First petitioner was absent for about 32 days i.e. 7 days more than the permissible limit and the second petitioner was absent for 31 days i.e. 6 days more than the permissible limit. If the total attendance of the 1st year is counted i.e. the attendance of both the 1st and final semester (2nd semester) then the attendance of first and second petitioner is well within the permissible limit being more than 80%. The petitioners filed their representation to condone 6 to 7 days period of absence on the ground of illness but it was not allowed. Though, in the cases of some other trainees, such as Sanjiiv Kumar and Chiranjit Singh whose attendance were much below 80%, even below the attendance of first petitioner. Their period of absence was condoned and they were allowed to appear in the examination.