G.S. Sandhawalia, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE in the amended writ petition is to the order dated 09.12.2013 (Annexure P9), passed by respondent No. 3, whereby the representation of the petitioner dated 25.11.2013 for sitting in the major examinations of B.Tech -I (Urban & Regional Planning) in November -December, 2013 was rejected on account of shortage of lectures.
(2.) THE pleaded case of the petitioner is that he had taken admission in the said course and the classes started on 15.07.2013. The petitioner had been attending classes but due to medical condition, being a patient of thyroid, had remained absent in July and August, 2013, for different periods. Medical reports in support thereof were also annexed and it was stated that he had lost 20 kgs of body weight. The classes could only be attended regularly in September -October, 2013 and the last class was held on 08.11.2013 and no classes were held thereafter. Due to his illness, he was short of lectures and in the meeting dated 19.11.2013, the Board of Control (its acronym, 'BOC') decided to condone the 10% of the lectures attended and also recommended to condone 5% of the lectures on medical grounds. The petitioner had given a representation dated 25.11.2013 (Annexure P4) that his case be considered as special case and he be allowed to sit in the major examinations of the said course. He had appeared in the 2 minor examinations and secured good marks in all subjects. The BOC, in an emergent meeting held on 25.11.2013, recommended the request of the petitioner as special case and allowed him to sit in the said examination which was to start on 26.11.2013 but the petitioner was not allowed to take his examinations due to which, he filed the present writ petition. Vide interim order dated 29.11.2013, he was allowed to take the remaining 4 examinations by this Court and was stated to have passed the said examinations. However, order dated 09.12.2013 came to be passed subsequently, due to which, the decision dated 25.11.2013 was rejected and earlier decision dated 19.11.2013 was upheld by the Vice Chancellor which is the subject matter of challenge in the amended writ petition. In the written statement filed, it was pleaded that as per the Ordinance 1.1 of the University Calendar 2008 Volume II, power of condonation was upto 10% of the lectures to the Head of the Department and other 5% to the Vice Chancellor, on the recommendation of the BOC and there was no authority to condone the lectures beyond what is provided in the said Ordinance. Accordingly, the meeting dated 19.11.2013 of the BOC was stated to be wrong and illegal. Para 7(f) of the Ordinance on Credit Based Continuous Evaluation Grading System clearly lays down that if the student falls short of attendance in more than 2 courses/subjects, in a particular semester, he will not be eligible to sit in the examination of the said semester. Accordingly, the order dated 09.12.2013, passed by the Vice Chancellor was justified and it was stated that the Syndicate had already ratified the said order on 23.12.2013 (Annexure R3) and the said decision was not subject matter of challenge. The classes had started on 15.07.2013 and ended on 13.11.2013 and more than 15 weeks of teaching had been done and the schedule applied to all the students and the lectures which had become short was because of the absence of the petitioner. It was submitted that the petitioner never informed the Department of his ailment and it came to their knowledge only when the application dated 25.11.2013 was received by them which the petitioner had submitted after knowing the BOC's decision dated 19.11.2013 and his attendance was not regular since September, 2013. In the subject of Communicative English, classes started on 22.07.2013 and the petitioner was not short of lectures therein and thereafter, he had shortage of lectures in 4 subjects, even after grant of condonation of maximum 15%. Only one student who was having extreme shortage of attendance and was not having 75% lectures and had met with a serious accident in October, 2009, was allowed to sit as a special chance to appear in the B.Tech 3rd semester examination. The Credit Based Continuous Evaluation Grading System was not in force at that point of time and had only come into force in 2010 -11 and therefore, the said case could not be made precedent. Even otherwise, mere giving a wrong benefit would not entitle this Court to give the petitioner similar relief.
(3.) IN replication, the resolution of the Syndicate dated 28.05.1983 (Annexure P13) was relied upon to show that the power of the Vice Chancellor was there to condone the shortage of lectures and it was submitted that the petitioner was not informed of the said shortage.;