- (1.) THIS appeal is by respondents 4 and 5 in W.P. (C) No. 4032 of 2003. Respondent No. 4 is a Society, registered under the Societies Registration Act conducting Diploma courses. Respondents 1 and 2 herein, the writ petitioners, are the students of the course 'Diploma in Tool Die Making '. They took the first Semester examination during the first year and passed the same. The second semester examination was approaching. Their parents were given notice that as there was lack of requisite attendance, the students were not eligible for appearing in the second semester examination. The minimum attendance required, as per the Rules for the Examination, is 80 per cent. Under Rule 18, the Governing Council or its Chairman or any of its delegated authority has the power to amend or relax the rules. The writ petitioners appear to have produced medical certificates a week before the examination, seeking relaxation of the rules relating to minimum attendance. As the request for relaxation was not granted, they rushed to this Court with the writ petition praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the concerned respondents to allow them to appear in the second semester examination of the first year that was being conducted by the appellants. Their main grievance was that two other students were permitted to take the examination notwithstanding that they did not have the minimum 80 per cent required attendance, and they were denied that privilege and this was discriminatory calling for interference by this Court. The appellants explained the circumstances by pointing out that the other two students involved had reasonable cause for not having the requisite percentage of attendance, that they were regular students who had more than the requisite attendance except for the period in which one of them became the victim of an accident and the other was struck by viral hepatitis and admitted in a hospital for treatment and, in that situation, the discretion was exercised in their favour, whereas the writ petitioners were habitual absentees, even without intimation or without any sustainable reason and, in that situation, the discretion was hot exercised to relax the concerned rule in respect of the writ petitioners. Documents were also produced in support of their case.
(2.) THE learned Single Judge took the view that the writ petitioners have been treated with discrimination when compared with the other two students and consequently, interference by the High Court was warranted. The learned Single Judge then proceeded to observe that the writ petitioners were entitled to be absent for 20 per cent of the days and if the balance period is covered by reasonable explanation offered by them for their absence, they had to be permitted to take the examination and the discretion ought to have been exercised by the appellants and the Governing Council in favour of the writ petitioners. Thus the learned Single Judge issued a mandamus, not for reconsidering the case of the writ petitioners, but directing the appellants to relax the attendance rule for the petitioners as was done in the case of two other students and to hold a special second semester examination of the first year for them and to allow the writ petitioners to appear in that examination and in the meantime admit the petitioners provisionally in the third semester of the second year, subject to the result of the second semester special examination. The learned Judge also directed that whatever attendance the petitioners have obtained during the pendency of the writ petition, should be counted for the purpose of their attendance in the third semester of the second year. The appellant Institute challenges this judgment in this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge has exceeded his jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In any event, this was an academic matter and the institution has acted according to its rules and the High Court should not have interfered with it, especially on the question regarding the eligibility of the students to take the examination, on having the requisite attendance and the qualification needed. It is also submitted that the discretion was fairly exercised by the Governing Council and the learned Single Judge could not have substituted his discretion in the place of the discretion of the Governing Council. It is also submitted that the reasoning adopted for interference was not tenable since while considering the question of exercising discretion, the authorities were taking note of the absence of the writ petitioners and their explanation for the period covered by that absence and the process of calculation adopted by the learned Single Judge was not warranted. Thus it is submitted that the judgment required to be interfered with as this was an academic matter and the appellants had acted only in terms of the regulations. It is also pointed out that the Institute is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act and it is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.
(3.) ON , behalf of respondents 1 and 2, the writ petitioners, it is contended that the learned Single Judge was justified in exercising the discretion in favour of the writ petitioners, that compared with the other two students to whom relaxation was given, the writ petitioners were discriminated against, and in that situation, there is no reason to interfere with the decision of the learned Single Judge. The reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge is commended for our acceptance.;