Dismissed

Dhairya Ketan Shah v. Lily Bhushan the Principal K.E.S. Shroff College

Bombay HC7 Mar 2012WP/594/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition dismissed. The Bombay High Court upheld the Respondent college's decision to deny the petitioner permission to appear for Semester II examinations. The court found the petitioner failed to achieve the mandatory 75% attendance aggregate, despite a medical certificate covering part of the absence, and rejected contions regarding procedural non-compliance or partial attendance.

What the court decided

AI extract

Dhairya Ketan Shah Vs Lily Bhushan the Principal… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

rng

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

O.O.C.J.
WRIT PETITION NO.594 OF 2012

¶5

Dhairya Ketan Shah.. Petitioner

¶6

vs

¶7

Lily Bhushan & ors

¶8

Mr.S.J.Shah i.b.Mr.Mehul Shah for Petitioner

¶9

Mr.Y.C.Naidu a/w Mr.Saurabh Kulkarni,Ms.Amrita
Sharma i.b C.R.Naidu & Co for Repst nos.1 and 2.
Mr.M.D.Naik AGP for Respt no.4

¶10

 CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR &
N.M.JAMDAR, JJ

¶11

P.C.

¶12

 Heard counsel for the parties.

¶13

1. The Petition is filed by a student of the
Respondent-college who has been denied permission
to appear in the ensuing examination for Semester II
of F.Y.B.Com for Academic year 2011-2012 to be held
on 10.3.2012.

¶14

2. The sole reason on which the Respondent-college
has denied that permission is that the Petitioner
had failed to achieve the target of 75% attendance

¶15

- 2 -

¶16

of attendance at the lectures delivered during the
second term of the current Academic year. The total
attendance of the Petitioner as on 3.1.2012 was
found to be only 44.21 % at the lectures delivered
during the month of December, 2011 and also
aggragate for the month of November and December,
2011 i.e. second term.

¶17

3. The Petitioner's father was informed about that

¶18

fact vide letter dt.3.1.2012 which intimation was
delivered by hand to the Petitioner whose
acknowledgment is found on Exhibit I. The Petitioner
has not filed any rejoinder affidavit to deny the
correctness of the document produced by the
Respondent-college.Duringthecourseof

¶19

arguments,however, it is stated that the signature
appearing on document on Exhibit I does not pertain
to the Petitioner. However, no such rejoinder
affidavit has been filed by the Petitioner asserting
that fact or the circumstances in which the
signature of the Petitioner appears below Exhibit I.

¶20

4. Significantly, the Petitioner's father has not
filed any Affidavit before this Court to state that
he was not informed by his son about the said

¶21

- 3 -

¶22

delivery of letter to him or otherwise. Indeed,
counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on
Ordinance 120 in particular Clause 57 to contend
that the college was obliged to send intimation to
the father of the Petitioner directly which
formality has not been complied with in the present
case. As a result the college cannot proceed
against the Petitioner much less denial of hall
ticket to the Petitioner.

¶23

5. For the reason noted above, this argument does
not commend to us. Reverting to the main controversy
from the chart which is appended to the Reply-
Affidavit of the Respondent-college, it is seen that
the Petitioner failed to attend lectures not only
during 14.11.2011 till 11.12.2011 but even for the
subsequent period. As regards period between
14.11.2011 till 10.12.2011 the Petitioner is relying
on the certificate issued under the signature
purportedly of Dr.A.N.Dandekar of Welfare Clinic
Exhibit O at page 107 which mentions that the
Petitioner was under his treatment from 7.11.2011 to

¶24

10.12.2011 for �Relapse typhoid fever� and was
advised rest for 34 days from 7.11.2011. At the
same time, it is mentioned that the petitioner was

¶25

¶26

fit to resume duty/college from 11.12.2011.

¶27

6. We will for the time being assume that the
fact stated in the said certificate issued by the
doctor is correct. However, what is to be noticed is
that the Petitioner has not been able to state as to
what prevented him to attend college on regular
basis after he was certified to be fit by the doctor
on 11.12.2011. However, it is noticed that the
Petitioner attended 17 lectures out of total 32
lectures between 11.12.2011 to 2.1.2012. The
Petitioner was issued a warning letter wherein the
letter was intimated to the Petitioner's father vide
letter dt 3.1.2012. Inspite of that, the Petitioner
attended only 60 lectures out of total 99 lectures
between 4.1.2012 to 15.2.2012. As a result, the
Disciplinary Committee in its meeting held on
17.2.2012 was left with no option but to include the
name of the petitioner as one of the ineligible
candidate to appear in the ensuing examination.
Name of the Petitioner was put on the notice board
on 17.2.2012 in that behalf. Besides, similar
action has been taken against 71 other students of
the Respondent-college who have failed to meet the
requirement of 75% attendance on aggragate at the

¶28

¶29

lectures delivered during the second term of the
current academic year.

¶30

7. The Petition does not offer any explanation at
all about the failure of the Petitioner to regularly
attend all the lectures after 11.12.2011 till the
completion of the term. In the absence of any
justification, even if we were to accept the
argument of the Petitioner that the Principal could
have exercised discretion with regard to the absence
of the Petitioner between 7.11.2011 till 10.12.2011
on the assumption that the Medical Certificate

¶31

submitted by the Petitioner issued under the
signature of Dr.A.N.Dandekar is genuine, the fact
remains that the Petitioner has offered no
explanation whatsoever for non-attendance after
11.12.2011.

¶32

8. In the circumstances, it is not possible to
find any fault with the decision of the Disciplinary
Committee or by the Principal of the Respondent-
college for not permitting the Petitioner to appear
for the ensuing examination as he had failed to
achieve 75% attendance in aggragate at the lectures
delivered during the second term of the current

¶33

¶34

academic year.

¶35

9. Counsel for the Petitioner relying on the

¶36

decision of G.RAMCHANDRAN (DR) vs GANDHI BINDIYA
RAJESH & ors 2003 (2) Bom.C.R. 337would contend
that in the subjects where the Petitioner has
achieved attendance of 75% of the aggragate at least
in respect of those subjects, the Petitioner should
be permitted to appear in the ensuing examination
and the Petitioner can later on complete the term
and achieve the required attendance in respect of
other subjects and clear those subjects in the
subsequent examination. The judgment pressed into
service does not lay down such a proposition. On
the other hand, considering the purport of Ordinance

¶37

120 of the Maharashtra University Ordinance
1999-2000 for the view taken by us, this submission
will be of no avail to the Petitioner.

¶38

10. Taking an over all view of the matter Petition
should fail. The same is dismissed.

¶39

11. At this stage, counsel for the Petitioner
submitted that the Petitioner may be given liberty
to approach the Grievance Committee. We reject this

¶40

¶41

submission as it will not be open for the grievance
committee to take a view which is contrary to the
view expressed by us in this order. The Petitioner
has not canvassed any other argument which can be
presented before the Grievance Committee. Hence,this
submission does not commend to us. Therefore, the
same is rejected.

¶42

N.M.JAMDAR, J

¶43

A.M.KHANWILKAR, J

Dhairya Ketan Shah v. Lily Bhushan the Principal K.E.S. Shroff College

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Dhairya Ketan Shah v. Lily Bhushan the Principal K.E.S. Shroff College

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopal Pamnani Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sou. Latadevi Jalinder Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Social Justice and Special Assistance and Ors.

Sonali Dinesh More Vs Dinesh Shakarnagth More

Shri. Ramnivas Mangiram Agarwal and Ors. Vs Pune Municipal Corporation, through the Commissioner and Anr.

Kishor Pralhad Chaudhari Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Sports and Ors.

Jaykumar Vitthalbhai Dadhaniya Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.