Judgment:
Bharuka, J.
1. It is one of those exceptional cases where a candidate by using the Judicial Forum has firstly obtained admission to a Professional Course (BDS) in the midstream of the academic session and then by the same process sought permission to sit at the examination without fulfilling the requirement of minimum attendance as per the Statutory Regulations and now claims a right to declaration of results.
2. In the case of STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. DR. ANUPAM GUPTA, : [1992]1SCR643 it has been held by the Apex Court that the High Courts should not issue directions to admit candidates during the midstream of the academic session, even if the seats be vacant because it affects the excellence of education.
3. In the present case, as per the academic calender notified by the respondent University for BDS Degree Course for the 1994-95 (Annexure-R1), the first term of the course had to commence on 14.11.1994 and the last date fixed for admission to the course was fixed as 15.12.1994. The petitioner, without placing on record the said academic calender of the University or even impleading the University, pursuant to an order dated 3.1.1995 in WP No. 60/95 filed by her, got herself admitted in the second respondent College on 17.2.1995. It has been stated in the statement of objections filed by the respondent-College that the father of the petitioner, who himself is a Doctor, on appreciating the delay in her admission and likelihood of shortage of attendance agreed in writing (Annexure-R2) that 'She (Petitioner) be permitted to write 1st BDS Examination in January 1996'.
4. As apprehended, the petitioner could not achieve the minimum required percentage of attendance of the total lectures and practicals conducted by the respondent-College during the academic period 14.11.1994 to 10.7.1995 as prescribed in the University Calender Annexure-R1. As per the communication dated 4.11.1995 of the Principal of the Respondent College to the University, which has been placed through a Memo on the record with due notice to the petitioner, the percentage of the classes attended by the petitioner is to the following effect:-
'03. No. of Classes attended by Miss. Swathi Jain is as follows: Theory PracticalsA) Gen. Hum. Anatomy 32/72=44% 85/140=61%B) Gen. Physiology 36/56=64% 22/38= 58%C) Biochemistry 13/25=52% 11/30=37%D) Dental Materials 51/84=61% 33/58= 57%
5. As per the Regulations of the University pertaining to BDS Course which are in conformity with the Regulations framed by the Dental Council of India, the minimum attendance required to be completed by a Candidate for being eligible for appearing at the examination is 75% in theory and 75% in Practical/Clinical in each subject each year.
6. Table No. 1 appended to Part I of the Regulations provides for the minimum working hours for each subject of study. The contents of the Table to the extent it is relevant for the present purpose is to the following effect:-
SI.No.
Subject
Hrs.of Lectures
Total Practical hours
Total
1.
General Human Anatomy
70
130
200
2.
General Human Physiology Biochemistry
50 25
40 30
145
3.
Dental Materials
25
30
65
7. In the present case, as is evident from above, though in the academic year 1994-95, the respondent-College had imparted instructions for equal to or even more than the minimum working hours prescribed by the Statutory Regulations but because of her admission in mid-stream of the academic session, the petitioner could not attain the minimum percentage of attendance to become eligible to appear at the first semester BDS Examination,
8. The petitioner took the contention before the respondent University that since she was admitted late in February 1995, therefore her percentage of attendance should be worked out with reference to the hours of instructions held from the date of her admission to the course and not by calculating the percentage over the total instructional hours of the entire academic session. But this plea did not find favour with University. By the impugned communication dated 30.5.1995 of the Registrar (Evaluation) addressed to the 2nd respondent (Annexure-J) it was informed that because of shortage of attendance the petitioner cannot be permitted to sit at the first B.D.S. examination to be held in July 1995. It was communicated that there is no provision under the Regulations to relax the attendance requirements.
9. The respondent-University in its statement of objection has set out the details of conducting the course in question. It has been stated that the B.D.S Course is of 5 years which include 12 months of compulsory Rotatory House-Surgeonship. Each academic year consists of 8 months. The 1st term of B.D.S Course for the year 1994-95, commenced on 14.11.1994 as per the academic year's calendar notified by the University on 21st December 1994. Though the last date fixed for admission to the First B.D.S. Course was on 3.1.1995, the attendance shall be calculated from 14.11.1994 i.e. the commencement of term days. As per the Regulations governing the B.D.S. Course, 75% of attendance in theory and 75% in Practical/clinical in each subject, must be obtained by the students in order to get the eligibility to take the examination. It has further been stated that there is no provision in the Regulations for the condonation of shortage of attendance. According to the University, petitioner having joined the course on 17.2.1995 has not fulfilled the attendance requirement and consequently she is not entitled to take the I. B.D.S. Examination that commenced on 15.7.1995. But it has been conceded that she will become eligible to take the examination that will be held in the month of January/February 1996.
10. The respondent-College with its statement of objections has enclosed a letter dated 13.5.1995 (R4) addressed by its Principal to the University inter-alia communicating that-
'At the time of admission, the above mentioned four students have informed that they may not be eligible to appear for I B.D.S. examination in July 1995 but will be eligible in January 1996 only as they have missed many classes and admissions are delayed. They have agreed for the condition
Now they are requesting for permission to appear for I Year B.D.S. examination in July 1995 even though they will not fulfill the attendance requirement.'
11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner now submits that even if the calculation of percentage of attendance is not permissible from the date of admission of the petitioner i.e. 17.2.1995, it should in all fairness be calculated from the extended last date for admission fixed by the University i.e. 16.1.1995. According to her, if so calculated, as is evident from the letter dated 29.6.1995 written by the Principal of the respondent-College to the University, she will be found to have secured more than 75% of the attendance entitling her to appear at the July 1995 examination.
12. It cannot be disputed that the requirement of attending the instructional hours/classes at a minimum given percentage is provided to ensure that the students joining the course will be able to attain the education of prescribed standard. This requirement, which is prescribed by the academic experts in the field, has to be uniformly applied to all the students admitted to the course. The calculation of attendance requirement cannot be made dependant on the variables like dates of admission. Maintenance of educational standard and its excellence is a social and National requirement and it can be so maintained only if it is ensured that the Institutions should impart courses for a given length of hours and the students necessarily avail it to a certain given percentage to make them eligible for appearing at the aimed examination. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the respondent-University has rightly rejected the contention of the petitioner.
13. In the case of PRINCIPAL, PATNA COLLEGE v. K.S. REHMAN, : [1966]1SCR974 , the Supreme Court while dealing with University Regulations pertaining to attendance requirements has held that -
'Even on merits, we think we ought to point out that where question involved is one of interpreting a regulation framed by the academic council of an University, the High Court should ordinarily be reluctant to issue writ of certiorari where it is plain that the regulation in question is capable of two constructions and it would generally not be expedient for the High Court to reverse a decision of the educational authorities on the ground that the construction placed by said authorities on the relevant regulations appears to the High Court less reasonable than the alternative construction which it is pleased to accept'.
Accordingly, I find it difficult to interfere with the impugned decision/communication vide Annexure-J.
14. The Regulations under consideration do not empower any authority to condone the deficiency in the matter of attendance. Faced with a similar situation the Supreme Court in the Case of ASHOK KUMAR v. H.P. UNIVERSITY, : AIR1973SC221 , was constrained to hold -
'Considering that this case concerns the career of a young student we tried to took at the matter with all possible sympathy and consideration but we do not see how we can direct or compel an authority to do something which is beyond its legal competence to do. Since the Principal is the only authority who can condone and since it was beyond his competence to condone the shortage in question, we do not see how we can intervene in favour of the petitioner even if the petitioner had succeeded in making out a case for condonation. In our opinion, the appeal must fail on this short point. Much as we regret the unfortunate fact that the petitioner is going to lose almost two precious years of his academic life we are in law bound to confirm the decision of the High Court, and dismiss the petitioner's appeal. We, therefore, do so.'
15. In the present case, this Court, pursuant to the interim prayer made by the petitioner, by its Order dated 13.7.1995 permitted her to take the examination which was to commence on 15.7.1995. But it was clarified that the Interim Order was subject to result of this Writ Petition and that the petitioner will not be entitled to claim any equity based on the Interim Order.
16. In the case of Principal, Patna College (supra) also the University authorities did not allow the student concerned to sit at the examination on the ground of shortage of attendance. The High Court in its Writ Jurisdiction passed an Interim Order permitting the student to appear at the examination but publication of result was restrained until disposal of the Writ application. On final hearing the High Court came to the conclusion that the Vice-Chancellor had the competence to condone the shortage in attendance. Accordingly he was directed to exercise the discretion vested in him in accordance with law and in case the shortage was condoned the result of the examination was to be declared otherwise the appearance at the examination was to be ignored. On Appeal, the Supreme Court having found the conclusions of the High Court untenable, set aside its order and dismissed the Writ Petition filed before the High Court. It was also held that -
'It is hardly necessary to emphasise that in dealing with matters relating to orders passed by authorities of educational institutions under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court should normally be very slow to pass expert interim orders, because matters falling within the jurisdiction of the educational authorities should normally be left to their decision, and the High Court should interfere with them only when it thinks it must do so in the interest of justice.'
17. In paragraph 3 of its statement of objections the respondent University has stated that the Interim Order passed on 13.7.1995 was received by it on 14.7.1995 and the examination was to commence from 15.7.1995. Accordingly, the petitioner was permitted to sit at the examination but the result thereof has been withheld.
18. Keeping in view the facts of the present case and the law on the subject, I am of the considered opinion that since the petitioner has failed to fulfil the attendance criteria as prescribed under the Regulations, she was not eligible to appear at the first B.D.S. examination held in July 1995 and therefore her appearance at the said examination, pursuant to Interim Order of this Court has to be ignored. Any how, she will be entitled to take the next ensuing examination subject to fulfilment of the relevant eligibility criteria.
In the result, the Writ Petition stands dismissed with costs assessed at Rs. 1,500/- payable to the respondent University.