INDO DANISH TOOL ROOM Vs. PURBASHA GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by respondents 4 and 5 in W.P. (C) No. 4032 of 2003. Respondent No. 4 is a Society, registered under the Societies Registration Act conducting Diploma courses. Respondents 1 and 2 herein, the writ petitioners, are the students of the course 'Diploma in Tool Die Making '. They took the first Semester examination during the first year and passed the same.

(2.) THE learned Single Judge took the view that the writ petitioners have been treated with discrimination when compared with the other two students and consequently, interference by the High Court was warranted. The learned Single Judge then proceeded to observe that the writ petitioners were entitled to be absent for 20 per cent of the days and if the balance period is covered by reasonable explanation offered by them for their absence, they had to be permitted to take the examination and the discretion ought to have been exercised by the appellants and the Governing Council in favour of the writ petitioners. Thus the learned Single Judge issued a mandamus, not for reconsidering the case of the writ petitioners, but directing the appellants to relax the attendance rule for the petitioners as was done in the case of two other students and to hold a special second semester examination of the first year for them and to allow the writ petitioners to appear in that examination and in the meantime admit the petitioners provisionally in the third semester of the second year, subject to the result of the second semester special examination. The learned Judge also directed that whatever attendance the petitioners have obtained during the pendency of the writ petition, should be counted for the purpose of their attendance in the third semester of the second year. The appellant Institute challenges this judgment in this appeal.

(3.) ON , behalf of respondents 1 and 2, the writ petitioners, it is contended that the learned Single Judge was justified in exercising the discretion in favour of the writ petitioners, that compared with the other two students to whom relaxation was given, the writ petitioners were discriminated against, and in that situation, there is no reason to interfere with the decision of the learned Single Judge. The reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge is commended for our acceptance.