Petitioner, a law student, sought a roll number for her 9th semester examination due to medical absence. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the medical certificate did not prove total incapacity to attend classes and the petitioner's overall attendance was deficient.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CWP No.18918 OF 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
DATE OF DECISION: 09.2.2010
Shivani
...Petitioner
VERSUS
Guru Nanak Dev University & Others …Respondents
CORAM
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI
PRESENT: Mr.H.S.Thiara, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr.Amrit Paul, Advocate for respondent no.1 Mr.RS Bajaj, Advocate for respondent no.2
Permod Kohli, J. (Oral)
The petitioner, a student of 9th Semester of Five Years LL.B. Course has been denied Roll Number for appearance in the 9th Semester Examination as also permission to attend 10th Semester classes. This petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to issue roll number for appearing in the 9th Semester examination.
It is pleaded by the petitioner that in the month of August, 2009, the petitioner got herself medically checked up from Sharma Clinic and Nursing Home and on the advice of doctor, she was advised bed rest from 18.8.2009 to 11.9.2009. The petitioner was asked to undergo number of
CWP No.18918 OF 2009 2
tests on day to day basis and thus she could not attend all the lecturers in the 9th Semester. It is further pleaded that the petitioner deposited fee for the 10th Semester, but despite that she has not been permitted to attend the classes nor roll number has been issued to appear in the examination. The petitioner also claims to have made written application dated 28.11.2009 narrating the circumstances for remaining absent from the classes. When this petition was filed, the petitioner had already missed two papers- one on 30.11.2009 and the another on 5.12.2009. While issuing notice of motion, an interim order was issued in terms of an earlier order in CWP No.18596 of 2009.
The University as also the Lovely Institute of Law where the petitioner was admitted have filed their separate replies. Both of them have relied upon the rule framed by the Bar Council as also the Ordinance framed by the University. It is the stand of the respondents that minimum 66% attendance was required, however, the petitioner has shortage of attendance in all the subjects.
While giving the details of the shortage of lecturers, it is stated in the reply filed by respondent no.2 that the petitioner had attended 52.44% lectures upto the end of August, 2009 and 50% each upto the end of October and November, 2009.
The petitioner placed on record a medical certificate dated 12.9.2009 (Annexure P-1) issued by the Sharma Clinic and Nursing Home, a private clinic. From the perusal of the said Certificate, it reveals that the petitioner was getting treatment only in OPD from 18.8.2009 to 11.9.2009. Though it is mentioned that she was advised bed rest during the period of treatment, however, there is nothing on record to indicate that the nature of ailment of
CWP No.18918 OF 2009 3
the petitioner was such that she could not have attended the classes at all. Otherwise also, the Medical Certificate relied upon by the petitioner does not inspire any confidence. There does not seem to be any valid ground to accept the contention of the petitioner for condonation of lectures. Absence of the petitioner in August, September, October and November further shows that the petitioner was not regularly attending the classes. Alhough in the certificate (Annexure P-1) bed rest only from 18.8.2009 to 11.9.2009 is mentioned, however, surprisingly, even during this period, the petitioner did appear in the respondent-Institute and attended lectures on some days. All these circumstances are sufficient to establish that the petitioner was not suffering from such infirmity or medical problem that she could not attend the classes.
In view of the above, I find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.
(PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE
9.2.2010 MFK
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a medical certificate justifies relaxation of attendance rules for examination appearance.
Whether a petitioner can avail concession of missing lectures by virtue of illness.
Whether the petitioner was regularly attending classes despite claims of medical treatment.
Shivani
Guru Nanak Dev University
Permod Kohli
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
