Judgment:
ORDER
Y.V. Narayana, J.
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner questions the issuance of the Memo dated 17-2-1997 by the 2nd respondent and prays to declare the impugned action of the respondents in issuing the same without considering the shortage of 5% attendance, as ordered by this Court in W.P.No. 13839 of 1996 dated 5-12-1996, as illegal and contrary to law.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The petitioner herein joined the 1st respondent-College to prosecute the course in B.V.Sc. Degree in the academic year 1989-90. He could not, however, appear for and get through the examinations regularly due to his bad financial position as, it is stated that, he hails from a poor family. It is stated that though he registered the course called 'VAN 421' (Meat Animal Production) pertaining to the 2nd semester of the IV year along with the regular batch of 1991 students, he could not appear for the same. He, however, appeared for the said subject i.e., VAN 421 as a backlog and passed the final examination in April, 1996. It is further submitted that when the result was not declared, he approached the 1st Respondent who informed him that since there was shortage in attendance, his result could not be declared as per the Regulations. Thereafter, he approached this Court by filing W.P.No. 13839 of 1996 and this Court by Judgment dated 5-12-1996 directed the respondents to give a show cause notice to the petitioner on the proposed action of cancellation of examination taken by him in VAN 421 and on receiving the explanation from the petitioner, the respondents were further directed to consider the same on humanitarian grounds for condonation of the shortage in attendance. Accordingly, a show-cause notice dated 2-1-1997 was issued to the petitioner, to which the petitioner gave his explanation on 4-1-1997. The said explanation was forwarded to the 2nd respondent-University for passing necessary orders. Thereafter, the 1st respondent issued a memo dated 12-2-1997 directing the petitioner to produce the practical record and observation note book pertaining to the course VAN 421, maintained by him during the 2nd semester of the year 1994-95. The petitioner sent a reply to the said memo stating that he had already submitted his practical record and observation note book to Dr. Gurdoji, his Advisor in the College. Subsequently, the impugned memo is issued stating that the petitioner obtained a grade of 4.97 (5.00) and as per U.G. Regulation 9.1(b), he shall be deemed to have failed in the course VAN 421. The petitioner was, therefore, advised to complete the said course as per Regulation 9.1(b).
3. Questioning the said memo, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the action of the respondents in not implementing the order of this Court passed in previous writ petition is illegal. He further contended that even though there is a specific direction to the respondents to consider the feasibility of condoning the shortage of 5% attendance, no steps were taken for condoning the shortfall in attendance. It is, therefore, contended that the respondents acted illegally.
4. Counter is filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent-University stating that as per the directions given by this Court in the earlier writ petition, the respondents have considered the case of the petitioner as a special case and condoned the shortage in attendance. It is further submitted, supporting the issuance of the impugned memo, that as per (the Regulations of) the APAU Regulations, 1979, the petitioner was not eligible to sit in the examination which he fared in April, 1996 as he fell short of the attendance and that as per the Regulations, the student who falls short of the required attendance is not entitled to sit in the examination. It is, however, submitted that by oversight, the petitioner was permitted to sit in the examination in April, 1996. The same was noticed subsequently. Therefore, his examination was to be cancelled. It is further contended that even otherwise also, the petitioner is deemed to have failed in the course as he could not obtain the required grade points of more than 6.0 as per the Regulations of the University. It is submitted that the petitioner could secure only a grade of 4.97. In those circumstances, the impugned memo was issued advising the petitioner to complete the course as per Regulation 9.1(b). It is, therefore, submitted that there is no illegality committed by the respondents in issuing the impugned memo.
5. In order to appreciate the contentions advanced by either side, it is necessary to have a glance through the Regulations of the University, called 'the APAU Regulations, 1979', which govern the undergraduate course of study in B.V.Sc. Degree. As per Regulation 7.1 every student should secure minimum of 75% attendance and if he fails to put in the minimum attendance, either in theory or in practicals, he will not be permitted to appear for the semester final examination and his registration for the course will be treated as cancelled. Of course, in case of regular candidates falling short of the required attendance, Regulation 7.2(b) gives power to the Principal of the College, on a request made by the student concerned, to relax the provision in Clause (a) of Regulation 7.2. Regulation 8 deals with evaluation of a student's performance and also awarding of grades. As per Regulation 8.1, the evaluation of a student in a course will be based on his performance in various kinds of examinations, records, class work and other types of exercises. As per Regulation 8.2 the Instructor shall conduct two periodical examinations with weightage of 25% marks for each examination (i.e., 50% marks for both examinations) at regular intervals during a semester. It shall be clarified here itself that each academic year consists of two semesters (as per Regulation 2.1) and the course of B.V.Sc. consists of a total number of 10 semesters (as per Regulation 10.1). At the end of each semester, the University will conduct final examinations for each course in theory portion of the course (Regulation 2.9). Thus, apart from theory examination, the student has to attend and write two periodical examinations in each semester.
It is noteworthy to mention here that unless a student appears for such number of periodical examinations as are prescribed, he should not be permitted to appear for the semester final examinations in the course concerned (as per Regulation 8.2). Regulation 8.4 deals with computation and awarding of course grade to the students. It states that in the allocation of marks for the course, each credit will be evaluated for 50 marks. The marks allotted for theory and practicals shall be in proportion to the credits for the theory and practicals. The proportion of marks for the common theory examinations and practical examinations will be 50 : 50. The marks for the practical shall be based on continuous evaluation of practical classes and a final practical examination which shall include a viva-voce examination. The proportion of marks between continuous internal evaluation of practical work and final practical examination will be of 1:1. As per Regulation 9, a student obtaining grade point of 6.0 to 6.4 will be considered to have passed the course but not satisfactorily. A student getting less than 6.0 will be deemed to have failed in the course. As per Regulation 9.1(c), permission will be given to the student who got less than 6.0 points to reappear for the final theory and/or practical examination in any course in which his grade point is less than 6.0. For this purpose, a student shall fill in a separate application and submit the same to the authorities along with the prescribed re-examination fee, within 25 days from the date of commencement of the subsequent semester.
6. A perusal of the Regulations makes it clear that a student must have a minimum of 75% attendance. If he fails to put in the said minimum percentage of attendance, he will not be permitted to sit in the semester final examination and his registration will also be treated as cancelled. It is further noticed that the result will be based on the performance of the student both in theory and practical examinations. The practical examinations include the periodical tests conducted by the Instructors. Further, the student must attend all the periodical tests conducted by the Instructor in a particular semester and must secure the minimum percentage of marks. Then only he will be permitted to sit in the semester final theory examinations. The result will be announced after aggregating the marks obtained by a student in theory and in practical examinations. A student who did not attend the periodical examinations may not secure any marks and there will be shortfall to that extent in marks also. On a final evaluation of the performance of a student both in theory as well as in practical examination, if the student secures less than 6.0 grade points, he will be deemed to have failed the course and as per Regulation 9.1(c), the student has to re-appear for the said course. Coming to the case on hand, the petitioner fell short of the required attendance and the same was, however, condoned on a direction given by this Court in the earlier writ petition. But, in view of Regulation 8.2, he was not eligible to sit in the semester final examination as he did not attend the periodical examinations. But, through oversight, the authorities permitted the petitioner to write the semester final examination. The petitioner, taking advantage of the permission given by the authorities to sit in the examination, now contends that having permitted him to sit in the final examination, the respondents are not justified to cancel the said examination. This contention, in my view, does not have any merit in view of the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel for the University. For the purpose of declaration of the result of a student, as already noticed, his performance both in theory and in practical tests will be evaluated and final grade points will be awarded. The University, for the purpose of evaluating the marks which the petitioner had obtained in practical examinations, had sent for the practical record and observation note book from the petitioner pertaining to the course VAN 421. But, the petitioner without sending the said records gave a reply stating that he had already submitted the same to his Advisor Dr. Gurdoji. When the said fact was ascertained from Dr. Gurdoji, he, by his letter dated 13-2-1997, clarified that the petitioner did not submit any such records to him for the purpose of evaluation. The Performance Register (Xerox copy) produced by the University shows that the petitioner remained absent during the periodical tests conducted in second semester of the year 1994-95. Thus, from the above, it is clear that the petitioner had neither attended the periodical tests conducted during the second semester of the year 1994-95 nor submitted his records for the purpose of evaluation before Dr. Gurdoji. As already noticed, when once the student did not attend the periodical tests he will not be permitted to sit in the semester final examination. But, the petitioner herein was, due to the sheer negligence of the authorities, permitted to sit in the final examination. Even after his attending the final examination, there was no change in the position. Since the petitioner could not secure any marks in periodical tests, in the evaluation of the papers written by him which are available with the respondents, the petitioner could secure only 5.0 grade points, which is less than the required points for securing pass in the course. Therefore, the University cancelled the examination and advised him to reappear for the course by following Regulation 9.1(c). I do not find any illegality on the part of the respondents in issuing the impugned memo. Even though the respondents are, to some extent, responsible for the present situation as only because of their negligence, the petitioner could successfully write the final semester examination in the course in spite of the fact that he was not eligible for the same, the petitioner was equally responsible for the predicament in which he is now placed for prosecuting his studies in a most casual manner. Of course, there may be good reasons for him for not attending the examinations at the first instance but he cannot claim sympathy and seek relaxation of the mandatory Rules laid down by the University. If the relief sought for by the petitioner is granted and a direction is given to the authorities to declare the result of the petitioner whose examination itself had to be cancelled, as he failed to write the periodical examinations, it would amount to directing the respondents to do one more illegal act. Sympathy has no role to play when the Regulation is otherwise. In such cases, the Court must show utmost restraint while issuing any direction to the authorities. In this case, since the petitioner did not attend the periodical tests conducted by the University, and in spite of the fact that he attended the semester final examination, it was deemed that he did not attend the examinations and consequently the examination had to be cancelled by the authorities. In those circumstances, there is no other alternative for the petitioner except to re-appear for the said examination as per Regulation 9.1 (c) by paying the required examination fee. For these reasons, I am of the view that there is no illegality in the impugned memo. There are no merits in the writ petition.
7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.