Dismissed

Samriddhi Tiwari and Ors. v. Mithibai College Arts Science and Commerce and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Mar 2020WP/2848/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, college students facing below 70% attendance, sought direction to be permitted to appear in summer examinations. The Single Judge dismissed the petition, holding that the college rules mandating minimum attendance could not be breached to promote a practice of short attendance.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed for want of requisite attendance; no direction granted to permit examination appearance.

Samriddhi Tiwari and Ors. Vs Mithibai College Arts… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

Sachin R. Patil

¶2

wp.st.-4793/20

¶3

Digitally signed by Sachin R. Patil Date: 2020.03.13 15:35:23 +0530

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION (st.) NO. 4793 OF 2020

¶6

Samriddhi Tiwari and others. ..Petitioners. Versus Mithibai College of Arts Science and Commerce and Others. ..Respondents.

¶7

..Respondents.

¶8

Ms. Swapna P. Kode for the Petitioners.

¶9

Mr. Ashish Kamat, Ms. Manorama Mohanty and Ms. Ruchi Doshi i/ b S. K. Srivastava & Co., for Respondent No. 1. Ms. R. A. Salunkhe, AGP for the Respondent-State.

¶10

Coram : R. K. DESHPANDE, & PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ. Date : March 12, 2020 .

¶11

P. C. :

¶12

One hundred and seven students of the commerce stream in Respondent No.1–Mithibai College of Arts, Science and Commerce have approached this Court seeking direction to Respondent No.1, which is an autonomous institution, to permit them to appear in the ensuing summer examination of II^nd , IV^th and VI^th semesters. The names of the petitioners do not reflect in the list of students who are permitted to appear in the examination. The reason being that the Petitioners are suffering short of requisite attendance.

¶13

The Rules of attendance are contained in the

1 / 4

patilsr

wp.st.-4793/20

handbook and prospectus for the course in question. The provision of Rule 6.1 relating to the attendance of learners for granting term, to the extent relevant, is reproduced below :

¶18

“6.1 RULES RELATING TO ATTENDANCE FOR LEARNERS FOR GRANTING TERM

¶19

. There will be an Attendance Committee consisting of faculty members representing the Arts, Science, Commerce and Unaided courses for maintaining records and implementing the rules of attendance.

¶20

. Every bonafide learner should mandatorily have a minimum of 70% attendance for each subject / program and an overall average attendance of 75% of all lectures tutorials and practicals conducted in a semester.”

¶21

The attendance of the Petitioners is scrutinised by the attendance committee responsible for implementing the rules of attendance. It is told to us that attendance of the Petitioners does not exceed 65%. In terms of the aforesaid rule, the decision of Respondent No.1 is that the students cannot be permitted to appear in the examinations for want of requisite attendance as per the above rule.

¶22

Respondent No.1-College claims to have put on notice the students as well as their parents and guardians from

2 / 4

patilsr

wp.st.-4793/20

time to time and well in advance. Our attention is invited to the notices published on 18^th November 2019 and 17^th December 2019. Our attention is also invited to the undertaking submitted by the students that they are aware of the rules of attendance of 70% in each subject / course, and overall average attendance of 75%. The undertaking further shows the knowledge that if the required attendance as per the rules is not attained, the students will not be granted term of the semester in the academic year. We are informed that by various modes of communication like whatsapp, letter and reminders, the short of attendance of the Petitioners was brought to the notice well in time. Inspite of this, students are suffering from short of attendance and there is no requirement under the rules to condone the deficiency in attendance below 65%. We fail to understand the basis for the claim of Petitioners to grant permission to appear in the ensuing examinations, with the attendance between 50% and 65%.

¶27

It is not possible for us to permit the compromise with the attendance discipline. We cannot be a party to the breach of attendance discipline and to promote short of attendance by showing sympathy. To permit the students, by

3 / 4

patilsr

wp.st.-4793/20

way of interim arrangement, to appear for the examination in such a situation would only create a false hope or expectation. The attendance has to be minimum 75% with condonation of 5%. None of the Petitioners falls in this category.

¶32

It is urged that in the past Respondent No.1-college has permitted the students having attendance between 50% to 60% to appear for the examination. If such practice is sought to be curbed now by keeping in view the back experience, we do not find anything wrong in the said exercise. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.

¶33

[PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.] [R. K. DESHPANDE, J.]

¶34

4 / 4

¶35

patilsr

Samriddhi Tiwari and Ors. v. Mithibai College Arts Science and Commerce and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samriddhi Tiwari and Ors. v. Mithibai College Arts Science and Commerce and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajashree Sangappa Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rajashree Sangappa Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Nisar Ahmed Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors.

Sanjay Parashuram Ghorpade Vs the State of Maharashtra Thru the Secretary, School Eud. Dept. and Sports Dept. and Ors.

Dongargaon Shikshan Prasarak Mandal through Its Secretary and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors.

Shree Shahu Marathi School, Tapowan and Anr. Vs Deputy Director of Primary Education Kolhapur Region and Anr.