Sri B.K. Raghu S/O Sri Keshava S. Naik Since Minor Rep. by His Father Sri Keshava S. Naik S/O Sri Shinappa Vs. the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board Represented by Its Commissioner and Chairman, - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/388739
SubjectConstitution
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided OnSep-07-2007
Case NumberWrit Appeal No. 1458/2007
JudgeCyriac Joseph, C.J. and ;Ram Mohan Reddy, J.
Reported inILR2009KAR206; 2009(3)KarLJ288; 2009(3)KLJ288; AIR2009NOC1244(D.B); 2009(2)AIRKarR271
ActsConstitution of India - Article 226; Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board First Regulations, 1966 - Regulation 37, 37(2) and 37(3)
AppellantSri B.K. Raghu S/O Sri Keshava S. Naik Since Minor Rep. by His Father Sri Keshava S. Naik S/O Sri Sh
RespondentThe Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board Represented by Its Commissioner and Chairman, ;t
Appellant AdvocateSriyuths M.S. Bhagwat and ;D. Pavanesh, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateB. Srinivasa Gowda, Government Adv. for R1 and 2
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
karnataka secondary education examination board first regulations, 1966 - regulation 37--conditions of eligibility to appear for the examination as a school candidate--shortage of attendance--total number of 210 working days--deficiency of attendance of 116 days--order of the board declining to condone the deficiency of attendance--permission to appear in the sslc examination-rejection of--challenge to--judicial review--held, regulation 37(3) requires that the board should take the decision only after considering the circumstances of each case and only for the reasons to be recorded in writing. hence, no student can claim condonation of deficiency of attendance as a matter of right. ordinarily deficiency of attendance cannot be condoned beyond 30 days. condonation of deficiency of attendance beyond 30 days is only an exception. such condonation is left to the discretion of the board. therefore, where the board condones or refuses to condone deficiency of attendance beyond 30 days, the judicial review is only limited to the question whether board is illegal, arbitrary or irrational.--on facts, held,--the board found that the deficiency of attendance was of 116 days (115.5 rounded as 116). the board felt that in a case where the deficiency of attendance is 116 days, the student cannot achieve the goal of learning. according to the board, minimum attendance is fixed to learn the subjects in the school directly through the teachers and to earn capacity to take examination and if a student is unable to attend school, he cannot reach the minimum standard of learning. it is on that ground that the board declined to condone the deficiency of attendance and held that the appellant was not eligible to take sslc supplementary examination held in the month of may-2007. the decision of the board cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary or irrational--not a case for interference under article 226 of the constitution of india.writ appeal is dismissed. - attendance: [cyriac joseph, cj & ram mohan reddy, j] karnataka secondary education examination board first regulations, 1966 -regulation 37 - conditions of eligibility to appear for the examination as a school candidate - shortage of attendance total number of 210 working days - deficiency of attendance of 116 days order of the board declining to condone the deficiency of attendance rejection of permission to appear in the sslc examination - challenge as to judicial review held, regulation 37(3) requires that the board should take the decision only after considering the circumstances of each case and only for the reasons to be recorded in writing. hence, no student can claim condonation of deficiency of attendance as a matter of right. ordinarily deficiency of attendance cannot be condoned beyond 30 days. condonation of deficiency of attendance beyond 30 days is only an exception. such condonation is left to the discretion of the board. therefore, where the board condones or refuses to condone deficiency of attendance beyond 30 days, the judicial review is only limited to the question whether the decision of the board is illegal, arbitrary or irrational. on facts held, the board found that the deficiency of attendance was of 116 days (115.5 rounded as 116). the board felt that in a case where the deficiency of attendance is 116 days, the student cannot achieve the goal of learning. according to the board, minimum attendance is fixed to learn the subjects in the school directly through the teachers and to earn capacity to take examination and if a student is unable to attend school, he cannot reach the minimum standard of learning. it is on that ground that the board declined to condone the deficiency of attendance and held that the appellant was not eligible to take sslc supplementary examination held in the month of may 2007. the decision of the board cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary or irrational. not a case for interference under article 226 of the constitution of india. - learners are expected to come to school or college regularly and on time, to work at about the same speed as their classmates and to pass tests to show how well they have progressed. in the end, they may earn a diploma, a certificate or a degree as mark of their success over the years.cyriac joseph, c.j.1. this writ appeal is filed against the judgment dated 25.7.2007 in writ petition no. 11568/2007 which was dismissed by the learned single judge. the appellant is the petitioner in the writ petition and the respondents are the respondents in the writ petition.2. the appellant was a student of standard x in the k.l.e. society's m.r. sakhare english medium school, vidyanagar, hubli during the academic year 2006-07. since the appellant did not have the minimum attendance to appear in the sslc examination commencing on 21.3.2007, he filed writ petition no. 4335/2o07 praying for a direction to the karnataka secondary education examination board (hereinafter referred to as 'the board') to issue hall ticket to the petitioner for the sslc examination to be conducted from 21.3,2007 or, in the alternative, to direct the board to treat the petitioner as an external student and allow him to appear in the sslc examination to be conducted from 21.3.2007. in view of the submission of the government advocate that if the petitioner files a proper representation enclosing relevant materials in support of his case to condone the deficiency of attendance, the board will consider the same and pass orders, the high court disposed of writ petition no. 4335/2007 permitting the petitioner to file the representation enclosing all relevant data necessary for the purpose of condoning the deficiency in attendance and directing the board to consider the representation and to pass orders forthwith. accordingly, the appellant filed a representation dated 17.3.2007 praying to condone the deficiency of attendance and to permit him to appear in the sslc examination. the said representation was disposed of by the board on 17.3.2007 itself rejecting the request of the appellant. the request was rejected on the ground that the board had taken a policy decision not to condone the deficiency of attendance above 30 days. thereupon the appellant filed writ petition no. 7515/2007 challenging the order dated 17.3.2007 of the board. by an interim order passed in the writ petition, the high court directed the board to allow the appellant to appear in the sslc supplementary examination held in may, 2007. however it was directed that the result need be announced only after the disposal of the writ petition. on the basis of the interim order passed by the high court, the appellant was allowed to appear in the sslc supplementary examination. later, writ petition no. 7515/2007 was disposed of by the high court on 26.6.2007 quashing the impugned order dated 17.3.2007 and directing the board to reconsider the case of the appellant under regulation 37(3) of the karnataka secondary education examination board first regulations, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the regulations'). it was also observed that if the decision was in favour of the appellant, he would be entitled for declaration of his results of the s.s.l.c. supplementary examination. the board reconsidered the case of the appellant under regulation 37(3). it was found that out of the total number of 210 working days during the academic year 2006-07, the appellant had attended the school only on 42 days. the board took the view that minimum attendance is fixed to learn the subjects in the school directly through the teachers and to earn capacity to take examination. if the student is unable to attend the school, he cannot reach the minimum standard of learning. according to the board, even though the appellant could not attend the school due to ill-health, he could not achieve the goal of learning. hence the board held that the appellant was not eligible to appear in the sslc supplementary examination held in the month of may-2007 and declined to condone the deficiency of attendance of 116 days. the request of the appellant was rejected by the board as per annexure-a order dated 6.7.2007.3. aggrieved by annexure-a order, the appellant filed writ petition no. 11568/2007 praying to quash annexure-a order dated 6.7.2007 and to condone the deficiency of attendance. the learned single judge dismissed the writ petition observing that the impugned order does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record and that the discretion exercised by the respondent is not arbitrary or unreasonable. against the dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioner has filed this writ appeal.4. regulation 37 of the karnataka secondary education examination board first regulations, 1966 is extracted hereunder:37. conditions of eligibility to appear for the examination as a school candidate:(1) no person shall be eligible to appear for the examination as a school candidate unless he has:(i) sent his application through a recognised high school in which he was studying as a regular student of the x standard at the time of sending his application for admission to the examination and has completed the course of study prescribed for the x standard;(ii) put in attendance of not less than seventy-five per cent of the number of working days (excluding holidays and vacation) or such other percentage of the number of working days as may be prescribed by the department of public instruction as the minimum attendance required to be put in by a student of the x standard in a recognised high school or deficiency in the required number of working days to be attended has been condoned under clause (2) or (3).(2) where the attendance put in by a school candidate is less than seventy-five per cent of the total number of working days in the x standard class:(i) the head of the recognised high school may condone deficiency in attendance of such number of days not exceeding fifteen days of the deficiency; and(ii) where the deficiency exceeds fifteen days, but does not exceed thirty days, the head of the recognised high school shall forward cases of such deficiency for condonation by the chairman and in cases where the deficiency exceeds thirty days, the names of candidates shall be reported to the chairman with details regarding the deficiency.(3) notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding clause, the board may in respect of a candidate or class of candidates condone deficiency of attendance either by general or special order upto such percentage of the working days as the board may decide after considering the circumstances of any case and for reasons to be recorded in writing.5. from the provisions contained in regulation-37, it is clear that the minimum attendance required for a student of standard x is 75% of the total number of working days. admittedly, the appellant had attended the school only on 42 days out of the total number of 210 working days. to satisfy the requirement of minimum attendance, the appellant should have attended school on 157.5 working days. thus there was a deficiency of attendance of 115.50 days.6. according to regulation 37(2)(i) the head of the school may condone deficiency in attendance of such number of days not exceeding fifteen days. according to regulation 37(2)(ii) where the deficiency exceeds 15 days, but does not exceed 30 days, the head of the school shall forward cases of such deficiency for condonation by the chairman and in cases where the deficiency exceeds 30 days, the names of candidates shall be reported to the chairman with details regarding the deficiency. according to regulation 37(3) notwithstanding anything contained in the clause (2) of regulation 37, the board may in respect of a candidate or class of candidates condone deficiency of attendance either by general or special order up to such percentage of the working days as the board may decide after considering the circumstances of any case and for reasons to be recorded in writing. thus in cases where the deficiency of attendance exceeds 30 days, the head of the school or the chairman of the board is not competent to condone the deficiency. in such cases, the board alone is competent to condone the deficiency of attendance. the regulation does not restrict the power of the board to condone the deficiency of attendance by prescribing any maximum number of days of deficiency that can be condoned by the board. on the other hand the regulation leaves it to the discretion of the board and the board has the discretion to condone deficiency of attendance up to such percentage of the working days as the board may decide after considering the circumstances of any case and for reasons to be recorded in writing. it does not mean that the board can condone the deficiency of attendance of any number of days ignoring the object of prescribing minimum attendance. the unlimited power is given to the board on the assumption that the board will take the decision regarding condonation of deficiency of attendance taking into account the object of prescribing minimum attendance, the need and importance of attending classes particularly at the school level, the genuineness of the reasons stated for not attending classes and the impact of indiscriminate condonation of deficiency of attendance on discipline of educational institutions. that is why regulation 37(3) requires that the board should take the decision only after considering the circumstances of each case and only for reasons to be recorded in writing. hence no student can claim condonation of deficiency of attendance as a matter of right. ordinarily deficiency of attendance cannot be condoned beyond 30 days. condonation of deficiency of attendance beyond 30 days is only an exception. such condonation is left to the discretion of the board. therefore where the board condones or refuses to condone deficiency of attendance beyond 30 days, the judicial review is only limited to the question whether the decision of the board is illegal, arbitrary or irrational.7. in annexure-a order the board has taken note of the fact that the appellant could not attend the school due to ill-health. at the same time, the board noticed that the appellant had attended the school only on 42 days out of 210 days during the academic year 2006-07. the board found that the deficiency of attendance was of 116 days (115.5 rounded as 116). the board felt that in a case where the deficiency of attendance is 116 days, the student cannot achieve the goal of learning. according to the board, minimum attendance is fixed to learn the subjects in the school directly through the teachers and to earn capacity to take examination and if a student is unable to attend school, he cannot reach the minimum standard of learning. it is on that ground that the board declined to condone the deficiency of attendance in the case of the appellant and held that he was not eligible to take sslc supplementary examination held in the month of may-207. it cannot be said that the exercise of discretion by the board is in any way wrong or improper or illegal or arbitrary or unjust. in the light of the reasons stated in annexure-a order, the decision of the board to reject the request for condonation of deficiency of attendance in the case of the appellant cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary or irrational. hence the impugned order annexure-a does not call for any interference by the high court under article-226 of the constitution of india. therefore the learned single judge was right and justified in dismissing the writ petition.8. according to the new lexicon webster's dictionary, 'education' means 'instruction or training by which people (generally young) learned to develop and use their mental, moral and physical powers.' according to the world book encyclopedia, education in its broadest sense refers to the ways in which people learn skills and gain knowledge and understanding about the world and about themselves. the ways of learning are generally divided into three types-formal, informal and non-formal. 'formal education' is instruction given in schools and colleges. in this type of education, the people in charge of a school or college decide what to teach and learners then study those things under the direction of teachers. learners are expected to come to school or college regularly and on time, to work at about the same speed as their classmates and to pass tests to show how well they have progressed. at the end of the year, successful learners move upto the next level - that is to the next standard, form or grade. in the end, they may earn a diploma, a certificate or a degree as mark of their success over the years. thus a formal education in a school or college necessarily involves learning and training under the direction of teachers and it envisages that the learners should come to the school/college regularly and on time. that is why the experts who formulated the policy and framed the regulations, have made minimum attendance an essential condition for eligibility to appear in the examination. having regard to the possible contingencies and circumstances, the rules also provide for dealing with exceptionally hard cases subject to certain reasonable conditions and limitations. persuaded by sympathy, the court should not further dilute or relax the requirements prescribed by the experts in the field. if the court did so, it will amount to an unwarranted interference in academic matters and it will not be in public interest. it may also be pointed out that the quality or worth of education consists not only in the marks obtained in the examination held at the end of the course. it consists also in the human qualities, the culture and the social outlook one acquires and the development of his personality through living with other students in the school/college as a community, constant interaction with teachers and other students and active participation in co-curricular activities. hence unless a student attends the school/college regularly, he cannot get proper education. therefore, it is in the interest of the student himself that he is asked to repeat the course to enable him to attend at least the required minimum number of classes.9. for the reasons stated above, the writ appeal is devoid of merit. hence it is dismissed.
Judgment:

Cyriac Joseph, C.J.

1. This Writ Appeal is filed against the Judgment dated 25.7.2007 in Writ Petition No. 11568/2007 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant is the petitioner in the Writ Petition and the respondents are the respondents in the Writ Petition.

2. The appellant was a student of Standard X in the K.L.E. Society's M.R. Sakhare English Medium School, Vidyanagar, Hubli during the academic year 2006-07. Since the appellant did not have the minimum attendance to appear in the SSLC examination commencing on 21.3.2007, he filed Writ Petition No. 4335/2O07 praying for a direction to the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') to issue Hall ticket to the petitioner for the SSLC examination to be conducted from 21.3,2007 or, in the alternative, to direct the Board to treat the petitioner as an external student and allow him to appear in the SSLC examination to be conducted from 21.3.2007. In view of the submission of the Government Advocate that if the petitioner files a proper representation enclosing relevant materials in support of his case to condone the deficiency of attendance, the Board will consider the same and pass orders, the High Court disposed of Writ Petition No. 4335/2007 permitting the petitioner to file the representation enclosing all relevant data necessary for the purpose of condoning the deficiency in attendance and directing the Board to consider the representation and to pass orders forthwith. Accordingly, the appellant filed a representation dated 17.3.2007 praying to condone the deficiency of attendance and to permit him to appear in the SSLC examination. The said representation was disposed of by the Board on 17.3.2007 itself rejecting the request of the appellant. The request was rejected on the ground that the Board had taken a policy decision not to condone the deficiency of attendance above 30 days. Thereupon the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 7515/2007 challenging the order dated 17.3.2007 of the Board. By an interim order passed in the Writ Petition, the High Court directed the Board to allow the appellant to appear in the SSLC Supplementary examination held in May, 2007. However it was directed that the result need be announced only after the disposal of the Writ Petition. On the basis of the interim order passed by the High Court, the appellant was allowed to appear in the SSLC Supplementary examination. Later, Writ Petition No. 7515/2007 was disposed of by the High Court on 26.6.2007 quashing the impugned order dated 17.3.2007 and directing the Board to reconsider the case of the appellant under Regulation 37(3) of the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board First Regulations, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations'). It was also observed that if the decision was in favour of the appellant, he would be entitled for declaration of his results of the S.S.L.C. Supplementary Examination. The Board reconsidered the case of the appellant under Regulation 37(3). It was found that out of the total number of 210 working days during the academic year 2006-07, the appellant had attended the school only on 42 days. The Board took the view that minimum attendance is fixed to learn the subjects in the school directly through the teachers and to earn capacity to take examination. If the student is unable to attend the school, he cannot reach the minimum standard of learning. According to the Board, even though the appellant could not attend the school due to ill-health, he could not achieve the goal of learning. Hence the Board held that the appellant was not eligible to appear in the SSLC Supplementary examination held in the month of May-2007 and declined to condone the deficiency of attendance of 116 days. The request of the appellant was rejected by the Board as per Annexure-A order dated 6.7.2007.

3. Aggrieved by Annexure-A order, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 11568/2007 praying to quash Annexure-A order dated 6.7.2007 and to condone the deficiency of attendance. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition observing that the impugned order does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record and that the discretion exercised by the respondent is not arbitrary or unreasonable. Against the dismissal of the Writ Petition, the petitioner has filed this Writ Appeal.

4. Regulation 37 of the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board First Regulations, 1966 is extracted hereunder:

37. Conditions of eligibility to appear for the examination as a school candidate:

(1) No person shall be eligible to appear for the examination as a school candidate unless he has:

(i) sent his application through a recognised High School in which he was studying as a regular student of the X Standard at the time of sending his application for admission to the examination and has completed the course of study prescribed for the X Standard;

(ii) put in attendance of not less than seventy-five per cent of the number of working days (excluding holidays and vacation) or such other percentage of the number of working days as may be prescribed by the Department of Public Instruction as the minimum attendance required to be put in by a student of the X Standard in a recognised High School or deficiency in the required number of working days to be attended has been condoned under Clause (2) or (3).

(2) Where the attendance put in by a school candidate is less than seventy-five per cent of the total number of working days in the X Standard class:

(i) the Head of the recognised High School may condone deficiency in attendance of such number of days not exceeding fifteen days of the deficiency; and

(ii) where the deficiency exceeds fifteen days, but does not exceed thirty days, the Head of the recognised High School shall forward cases of such deficiency for condonation by the Chairman and in cases where the deficiency exceeds thirty days, the names of candidates shall be reported to the Chairman with details regarding the deficiency.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding clause, the Board may in respect of a candidate or class of candidates condone deficiency of attendance either by general or special order upto such percentage of the working days as the Board may decide after considering the circumstances of any case and for reasons to be recorded in writing.

5. From the provisions contained in Regulation-37, it is clear that the minimum attendance required for a student of Standard X is 75% of the total number of working days. Admittedly, the appellant had attended the school only on 42 days out of the total number of 210 working days. To satisfy the requirement of minimum attendance, the appellant should have attended school on 157.5 working days. Thus there was a deficiency of attendance of 115.50 days.

6. According to Regulation 37(2)(i) the Head of the school may condone deficiency in attendance of such number of days not exceeding fifteen days. According to Regulation 37(2)(ii) where the deficiency exceeds 15 days, but does not exceed 30 days, the Head of the school shall forward cases of such deficiency for condonation by the Chairman and in cases where the deficiency exceeds 30 days, the names of candidates shall be reported to the Chairman with details regarding the deficiency. According to Regulation 37(3) notwithstanding anything contained in the Clause (2) of Regulation 37, the Board may in respect of a candidate or class of candidates condone deficiency of attendance either by general or special order up to such percentage of the working days as the Board may decide after considering the circumstances of any case and for reasons to be recorded in writing. Thus in cases where the deficiency of attendance exceeds 30 days, the Head of the school or the Chairman of the Board is not competent to condone the deficiency. In such cases, the Board alone is competent to condone the deficiency of attendance. The Regulation does not restrict the power of the Board to condone the deficiency of attendance by prescribing any maximum number of days of deficiency that can be condoned by the Board. On the other hand the Regulation leaves it to the discretion of the Board and the Board has the discretion to condone deficiency of attendance up to such percentage of the working days as the Board may decide after considering the circumstances of any case and for reasons to be recorded in writing. It does not mean that the Board can condone the deficiency of attendance of any number of days ignoring the object of prescribing minimum attendance. The unlimited power is given to the Board on the assumption that the Board will take the decision regarding condonation of deficiency of attendance taking into account the object of prescribing minimum attendance, the need and importance of attending classes particularly at the school level, the genuineness of the reasons stated for not attending classes and the impact of indiscriminate condonation of deficiency of attendance on discipline of educational institutions. That is why Regulation 37(3) requires that the Board should take the decision only after considering the circumstances of each case and only for reasons to be recorded in writing. Hence no student can claim condonation of deficiency of attendance as a matter of right. Ordinarily deficiency of attendance cannot be condoned beyond 30 days. Condonation of deficiency of attendance beyond 30 days is only an exception. Such condonation is left to the discretion of the Board. Therefore where the Board condones or refuses to condone deficiency of attendance beyond 30 days, the judicial review is only limited to the question whether the decision of the Board is illegal, arbitrary or irrational.

7. In Annexure-A order the Board has taken note of the fact that the appellant could not attend the school due to ill-health. At the same time, the Board noticed that the appellant had attended the school only on 42 days out of 210 days during the academic year 2006-07. The Board found that the deficiency of attendance was of 116 days (115.5 rounded as 116). The Board felt that in a case where the deficiency of attendance is 116 days, the student cannot achieve the goal of learning. According to the Board, minimum attendance is fixed to learn the subjects in the school directly through the teachers and to earn capacity to take examination and if a student is unable to attend school, he cannot reach the minimum standard of learning. It is on that ground that the Board declined to condone the deficiency of attendance in the case of the appellant and held that he was not eligible to take SSLC Supplementary Examination held in the month of May-207. It cannot be said that the exercise of discretion by the Board is in any way wrong or improper or illegal or arbitrary or unjust. In the light of the reasons stated in Annexure-A order, the decision of the Board to reject the request for condonation of deficiency of attendance in the case of the appellant cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary or irrational. Hence the impugned order Annexure-A does not call for any interference by the High Court under Article-226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore the learned Single Judge was right and justified in dismissing the Writ Petition.

8. According to the New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary, 'education' means 'instruction or training by which people (generally young) learned to develop and use their mental, moral and physical powers.' According to the World Book Encyclopedia, education in its broadest sense refers to the ways in which people learn skills and gain knowledge and understanding about the world and about themselves. The ways of learning are generally divided into three types-formal, informal and non-formal. 'Formal education' is instruction given in schools and colleges. In this type of education, the people in charge of a school or college decide what to teach and learners then study those things under the direction of teachers. Learners are expected to come to school or college regularly and on time, to work at about the same speed as their classmates and to pass tests to show how well they have progressed. At the end of the year, successful learners move upto the next level - that is to the next standard, form or grade. In the end, they may earn a diploma, a certificate or a degree as mark of their success over the years. Thus a formal education in a school or college necessarily involves learning and training under the direction of teachers and it envisages that the learners should come to the school/college regularly and on time. That is why the experts who formulated the policy and framed the Regulations, have made minimum attendance an essential condition for eligibility to appear in the examination. Having regard to the possible contingencies and circumstances, the rules also provide for dealing with exceptionally hard cases subject to certain reasonable conditions and limitations. Persuaded by sympathy, the Court should not further dilute or relax the requirements prescribed by the experts in the field. If the Court did so, it will amount to an unwarranted interference in academic matters and it will not be in public interest. It may also be pointed out that the quality or worth of education consists not only in the marks obtained in the examination held at the end of the course. It consists also in the human qualities, the culture and the social outlook one acquires and the development of his personality through living with other students in the school/college as a community, constant interaction with teachers and other students and active participation in co-curricular activities. Hence unless a student attends the school/college regularly, he cannot get proper education. Therefore, it is in the interest of the student himself that he is asked to repeat the course to enable him to attend at least the required minimum number of classes.

9. For the reasons stated above, the Writ Appeal is devoid of merit. Hence it is dismissed.