G.Pravina v. The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, Chennai – 28.2 & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated: 10.11.2008Coram:The Honourable Mr.A.K.GANGULY, CHIEF JUSTICEandThe Honourable Mr.Justice F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLAWrit Appeal No. 1266 of 2008G.Pravina…. AppellantVs.1. The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University, Chennai – 28.2. The Principal, Central Law College, Salem.…. RespondentsAppeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the orderpassed in W.P.No. 26019 of 2008 dt. 04.11.2008 praying a writ ofmandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to write thepetitioners final year(semester)Law Examination to be held on 03.11.2008.For Appellant:::: Mr. S.SankarasubbuFor Respondent 1:::: Mr.V.M.G.RemakkannaFor Respondent 2:::: Mr.Prem Auxilian RajJ U D G M E N T(The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hon’ble The Chief Justice)Heard the learned counsel for the parties, including the learnedcounsel for the University-first respondent. 2. This writ appeal has been filed impugning a judgment of thelearned Judge of the writ court dated 04.11.2008 whereby the writpetition filed by the appellant has been dismissed. The writ petitioneris the appellant in this case. 3. The case of the writ petitioner before the learned Judge of thewrit court was that she is a third year student of the Central Law https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ College, Salem (hereinafter called the “said College”). Her grievance isthat she is not allowed to sit for the third year examination as,according to her, permission was refused since she did not pay thedonation charged by the said College. The learned Judge found that theaforesaid plea of not allowing the appellant to sit for the examinationfor non-payment of donation is factually incorrect. In coming to thesaid finding, the learned Judge relied on a Division Bench judgment ofthis Court rendered in W.P.No. 8667 of 2004 on 18.10.2006. The learnedJudge found that the writ petitioner paid the amount of Rs.17,025/- intwo instalments, initially by way of first instalment of Rs.13,025/- andthen by subsequent instalment of Rs.4000/-. The said Division Benchjudgment of this Court dated 18.10.2006 has been annexed in the typedset of papers filed in this proceeding. From the said Division Benchjudgment, it appears that several writ petitions were heard by theDivision Bench in respect of the said College and at page 21 of thetyped set, it appears that the Division Bench held that the said Collegehas fixed the fees of Rs.17,025/- for Three Year Course per annum, andthere is a specific finding by the Division Bench, which runs asfollows: -“There is no material brought on record to show thatthe fees fixed by the College is excessive orexorbitant or that the College is indulging inprofiteering or commercialization.” The Division Bench also found that the fees for the School of Excellencerun by Dr.Ambedkar Law College is far more than the fees fixed by thesaid College. Therefore, it appears that the aforesaid fee structure ofRs.17,025/- for Three Years Law Course, which was fixed by the saidCollege, has been approved by the Division Bench of this Court.Therefore, the amount, which has been paid by the petitioner namely, thesaid amount of Rs.17,025/- by two instalments, was nothing but paymentof tuition fees of the said College. From the typed set filed by thepetitioner, it appears that the said amount was paid by the petitioneron 09.09.2008 and two receipts issued for the same have been annexed bythe petitioner at pages 1& 3 of the typed set. On a perusal of thosereceipts nothing appears to show that the petitioner was asked to payany donation. Therefore, the case, which has been made out in the writpetition, that because of non-payment of the donation by the petitioner,she was not allowed to appear in the examination, is not based on recordand cannot be accepted by this Court. Rather on a frivolous plea, thewrit petition has been filed, and this Court finds that the said pleahas been rightly rejected by the learned Judge. 4. The other plea is that the petitioner has been issued a hallticket, as a result of the issuance of the hall ticket to the petitionerby the University, the College authorities have no right to prevent thepetitioner from appearing in the examination. This argument has beendeveloped on the basis of the receipts showing payment of Rs.331/- bythe petitioner towards the examination fees. The said payment was madeby the petitioner on the basis of a bank challan in favour of theRegistrar, Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University-first respondent. Sofar as the hall ticket is concerned, the stand of the said College is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that the petitioner did not attend the classes at all. The Collegeauthorities have filed a typed set and in the said typed set they haveannexed two circulars dated 17.10.2008 and 24.10.2008. In the saidcirculars, they have given the list of students, who have earned theattendance to appear for the ensuing University Examination in November,2008. In the first list, which has been published on 17.10.2008, thenames of about 53 students have been shown, but the name of the writpetitioner is not there. In the second list, which has been published on24.10.2008, the names of the students who have not earned the requiredattendance have been shown and as such, they are not qualified to writethe examination in November, 2008. In the list, the name of the writpetitioner is shown. As stated earlier, the said list was published on24.10.2008 by the Principal of the said College. Before us, theattendance register has been produced by annexing a Xerox copy of thesame in the typed set. On a perusal of the attendance register, itappears that for the month of July, 2008, the writ petitioner did notattend classes even for a single day, even though classes for 13 dayswere held. Similarly, for the month of August, 2008, classes were heldfor 16 days, but the petitioner did not attend the classes even for asingle day. For the month of September, 2008, classes were held for 24days, but the petitioner did not attend classes for a single day. Forthe month of October, 2008, classes were held for 13 days and thepetitioner attended only for 7 days out of those 13 days. Therefore, outof the total number of classes held for 66 days, the petitioner hasattended only for 7 days, which is much less than the 75% requiredattendance. 5. Learned counsel for the University submits that even though thehall tickets are issued by the University, under the UniversityGuidelines and Regulations, such hall tickets are issued, subject to therules of attendance which are prescribed by the Bar Council of India andthe University and the same are to be strictly adhered to beforepermitting the candidates to write the examination. 6. Our attention has been drawn in this connection to page-5 of thetyped set filed by the said College, which is a circular issued by theController of Examinations, The Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law Universityand in the said Circular, it is clearly mentioned as follows: -“The Principals are further informed that the rulesas to attendance as prescribed by the Bar Council ofIndia and this University are to be strictly adheredto before issuing the Hall tickets and permittingthe candidates to take the examinations.” A xerox copy of an identical hall ticket has also been annexed and onthe reverse of the hall ticket several instructions have been mentioned.Instruction No.10 is as follows: -“Candidates who have earned a minimum of 75% ofattendance are eligible to appear for the Universityexamination. Candidates who have earned attendanceabove 66% and below 75% are eligible to appear forthe examinations provided the lack of attendance is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ recommended and forwarded for condonation by therespective College Principals on payment of theprescribed fee of Rs.500/-. In other cases nocandidate eligible to appear for the Universityexaminations.” 7. It is not in dispute that similar hall ticket has been issued tothe petitioner, which contains similar instruction. On a perusal of theaforesaid instruction mentioned in the hall ticket and the circularissued by the Controller of Examinations, it is clear that mere issuanceof hall ticket does not automatically allow the candidate to write theexamination, unless the candidate has requisite attendance. In thecounter-affidavit filed by the said College before the writ court, thesaid College has extracted the rules relating to attendance, and thesaid rules are as follows: -“A. Every student shall earn atleast 75% of thetotal number of working days to qualify forappearing in the University examinations. B. However the shortage may be condoned on Medicalor other valid grounds by University for thosecandidates who have attended atleast 66% of theworking days.C. Students having less than 66% of the total numberof working days SHALL REDO the course.” 8. From a perusal of the above said rules, the instructionmentioned in the hall ticket and also the circular issued by theController of Examinations, it is clear that earning required attendanceis a condition precedent to allow the candidate to sit for theexamination. In the instant case, the petitioner has attended only for 7days, whereas the University held classes for 66 days, and as such thepetitioner is not entitled to appear for the ensuing examination to beheld in November, 2008.9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to certainjudgments in support of his contention. Reliance was first placed on ajudgment of the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the caseof Premji Bhai v. Ravishankar University, AIR 1967 Madhya Pradesh 194.In the said judgment, the learned Judges held that once the deficiencyin attendance is condoned, and attendance certificate has been issuedfollowed by admission card to the examination, there cannot be anysubsequent withdrawal of permission or withholding the examinationresult by the Vice-Chancellor for want of attendance. Learned counselplaces reliance on the observation made in paragraph-8 of the saidDivision Bench judgment at page 197. From a perusal of the observation,it is clear that the learned Judges held that scrutiny as to therequisite attendance of the candidates is required to be made before theadmission cards are issued and once the admission cards are issuedpermitting the candidate to take their examination, there is noprovision in Ordinance No.19 or Ordinance No.48, which would enable theVice-Chancellor to withdraw the permission. In other words, the learnedJudges held that discretion having been exercised in favour of thestudent by permitting him to appear in the examination, it was not open https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to the Vice-Chancellor to withdraw that permission subsequently. In theinstant case, as pointed above, the hall tickets were issued, subject toclearance by the College authorities of the requisite attendance, as hasbeen discussed herein above. Therefore, the University Regulations aretotally different in this case. Therefore, the decision in the case ofPremji Bhai v. Ravishankar University (supra) is not applicable to thefacts of the present case. 10. Similarly, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, on whichreliance was placed by the learned counsel, rendered in the case of SriKrishnan v. Kurukshetra University, reported in 1976 (1) SCC 311, alsoproceeds on a similar reasoning. In that case, it was held thatUniversity Ordinance empowers the authorities to withdraw thecertificate regarding attendance before the examination. But this couldbe done only before the examination takes place. Once, the candidate isallowed to take the examination, rightly or wrongly, then the statutewhich empowers the University to withdraw the candidature of theapplicant has worked itself out and thereafter, the student cannot berefused admission subsequently for any infirmity, which should have beenconsidered before allowing the student to appear in the examination. Inthe case of Sri Krishnan the facts were that notice regarding shortageof attendance about the candidate was twice put up on the notice boardand the University was aware of it. Therefore, it cannot be said thatthe student committed any fraud on the University. If neither the Headof the Department nor the University authorities took care to scrutinizethe admission form, then in that case there is no question of fraudhaving been committed by the student on the University. Once theUniversity authorities allowed the student to appear for the examinationalong with those infirmities of shortage of attendance, the Universityhas no power to withdraw the candidature of the applicant or withholdhis result. The principles, which have been laid down by the Hon’bleJudges in the aforesaid judgment, are based virtually on Principles ofEstoppel. But in the instant case the factual position is totallydifferent. The hall tickets have been issued with clear stipulation thatthey are issued subject to the clearance of attendance by the collegeconcerned, and the same is reiterated in the circular issued by theController of Examinations, and on the instructions mentioned on thereverse of the hall ticket and also in the Regulations of theUniversity. Therefore, factually, the case, which have been decided bythe Madhya Pradesh High Court and by the Hon’ble Supreme Court have nobearing on the issue raised in the instant case. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on a SingleBench Judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Manas Sarkar v.University of Calcutta, AIR 2000 Calcutta 251. In that case, it appearsthat once the University accept attendance fee for shortage ofattendance for non collegiate students and allow them to sit in theexamination, subsequent non-speaking orders by syndicate of Universitydisallowing such students to sit in the examination is illegal. Asalready pointed above, the factual position in the instant case istotally different. Therefore, the ratio in the case of Manas Sarkar isnot attracted to the facts of the present case. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

12. For the reasons aforesaid, we hold that there is no merit inthe appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed and is accordingdismissed. No costs. Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.pv/Copy to: 1. The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University, Chennai – 28.2. The Principal, Central Law College, Salem. 1 cc to Mr.S.Prem Auxilian Raj, Advocate, Sr.No.62474W.A.No. 1266 of 2008SCD(CO)EM/18.11.