Adarsh Balakrishna and ors. Vs. Osmania University, Rep. by Its Registrar and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. teacher employed in the school run by cantonment board being covered under.....ordergoda raghuram, j.1. the petitioners five in number are all students of nizam college, the grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents are not issuing them hall tickets and permitting them to take their respective examinations for the course pursued by them in the 2nd respondent college, this refusal is on account of shortage of attendance of the petitioners.2. the petitioners claim to be young cricketers who have been selected to represent the state and the hyderabd cricket association at various levels. they are pursuing b.a., and b. com., courses in the 1st and 2nd years. the schedule for the semester examination was notified in the 2nd week of october 2002 for the commencement of examination. the petitioners were not issued hall tickets. they complain that the leave.....

Judgment:
ORDER

Goda Raghuram, J.

1. The petitioners five in number are all students of Nizam college, The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents are not issuing them Hall Tickets and permitting them to take their respective examinations for the course pursued by them in the 2nd respondent college, This refusal is on account of shortage of attendance of the petitioners.

2. The petitioners claim to be young Cricketers who have been selected to represent the State and the Hyderabd Cricket Association at various levels. They are pursuing B.A., and B. Com., courses in the 1st and 2nd years. The Schedule for the Semester examination was notified in the 2nd week of October 2002 for the commencement of examination. The petitioners were not issued Hall Tickets. They complain that the leave availed by them for enabling their participation in various tournaments and for attending camps organized by the Board of Control for Cricket in India has not been taken into account by the respondents in computing their attendance. If the absence on the above account is excluded, the petitioners claim they must be considered as having put in more than 90% attendance and are therefore eligible to appear at the examination.

3. While admitting the writ petition, this Court by the order dt. 6-11-2002 directed the respondents to give benefit of attendance to the petitioners for such period during which they have played cricket with the permission of the college in a recognized tournament/ camp and even after giving credit to such period, if any of the petitioners fall short of the requisite attendance, this court observed, it shall be open to the respondents to refuse issuance of Hall Tickets. By another order dt. 3-1-2003, this Court directed that the results of the examinations, which the petitioners appeared pursuant to the earlier directions dt. 6-11-2002 shall be declared subject to the result of the writ petition.

4. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that as per the information received from the 2nd respondent-an autonomous college, the attendance of the student is displayed in the notice board every month. The students are obliged to check their attendance and inform the Principal about any discrepancy, which, if found, would be immediately set right. It is further stated that the students are given attendance for the days they participate in any tournament or sports activity only on the recommendation of the Physical Director of the college. It is asserted by the 1st respondent that the 2nd respondent college is a teaching institution where academics take a prominent position vis-a-vis sports activities. It is further asserted that the appropriate regulations enable condonation of eight weeks of attendance and in the case of semester system four weeks attendance could be condoned. Wherever any recommendation is made by the Physical Director full credit of attendance is given to maximum limit of four weeks in case of semester system and eight weeks in case of yearly system, is the contention. Para 6 of the counter affidavit categorically states that after applying the above rule position and administering condonation of four weeks of attendance, the 1st petitioner was seen to have put in only 59% attendance; 2nd petitioner only 62% attendance; 3rd petitioner only 59% attendance; 4th petitioner only 46% attendance and 5th petitioner only 36% attendance. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the 2nd respondent was not obliged to condone four weeks of attendance in case of the petitioners as they attended a private coaching camp and not sports activities of the University. However, taking a liberal view of the matter, four weeks condonation as per the applicable regulations was given to the petitioners. Despite such condonation, none of the petitioners achieved the requisite 75% attendance for appearing in the examinations.

5. In the light of the assertions in the counter filed by the respondents that the petitioners have fallen short of the requisite minimum attendance, even after giving them credit for the eligible periods of absence for attending sports activity in the field of Cricket, the petitioners are seen to have no manner of right to the issuance of Hall tickets or attendance of the examinations.

6. The Writ petition is, accordingly dismissed. No costs.