AZRA SEEMA IYENGAR Vs. J P S OBEROI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a student of M. A. (Previous) of the University of Delhi, in the Department of Sociology, is directed against orders of the Head of the Department of Sociology detaining the petitioner on the ground that on account of shortfall in attendance for the full-time regular course of study, she was not eligible to appear for the M. A. (Previous) Examination in Sociology in April, 1978.

(2.) The facts and circumstances leading to the petition may be briefly stated. The petitioner has been a student of M. A. (Previous) in the Department of Sociology of the University of Delhi for a two-year course. The examination at the end of the first academic year of the course was scheduled to commence on April 22, 1978. On Jan. 17, 1978, a notice was put up on the notice board requiring the petitioner and a number of other students to meet the members of the Committee on Jan. 20, 1978, in connection with their "tutorial attendance". The petitioner, however, arrived late for the meeting, but subsequent to the meeting met two of the members of the Committee but allegedly had no explanation for irregular attendance. On March 27, 1978, a number of students including the petitioner were required to meet the Head of the Department of Sociology, respondent No. 1, and Dr. Veena Das of the Department of Sociology, on March 30, 1978, in connection with their "tutorial and seminar attendance". According to the Head of the Department, the petitioner met the Head of the Department and Dr. Veena Das on the aforesaid date and explained the shortage in attendance of tutorials and seminars on the ground of her illness and, when told that there was a possibility of her being detained, she offered to produce a medical certificate. According to the Head of the Department, she wanted to know "the exact period during which she was absent", but this information was not disclosed to her "lest she might submit a tailored certificate", She was, however assured that the details of her attendance in the seminars would be communicated to her in writing. According to the Head of the Department, she was also told that any medical certificate submitted by her would be "judged on its merits". In course of her communication of March 30, 1978, Dr. Veena Das informed the Head of the Department, that the petitioner was among the M. A. (Previous) students of Sociology who fell short of of the required attendance at seminars by more than 10% and, therefore, could not be allowed to carry the deficit to the next year. According to this letter, out of a total of 46 seminars, she had attended only 24 as against the minimum requirement of 34. This letter purported to give to the Head of the Department the outcome of the deliberations of the meeting of the Tutorial Committee and contained its recommendations with regard to the detention of students, who were running short of seminars or tutorials. By her communication of March 31, 1978, the petitioner informed the Head of the Department that she had not foreseen shortage in seminar attendance and had not submitted the medical certificate earlier which was enclosed with the communication. The Head of the Department was requested to "accept the certificate" and consider her case sympathetically. The enclosed certificate by Dr. Mazumdar, a Consultant Physician, made out that she had been examined "frequently" in the months of Sept. and Oct., 1977 and was suffering from "depression, anxiety, sleep disturbance and frequent attacks of migraine" and had been under treatment. Subsequent to this, the petitioner was informed by the Department of Sociology by its letter of March 31, 1978, that owing to short-fall in seminar attendance, the Committee of Tutorials, which met on March 27, 1978, had recommended her detention in M. A. (Previous) and that she will not, therefore, be eligible to sit for the M.A. (Previous) Examination scheduled to be held in April, 1978. In this letter, the extent of shortage was for the first time disclosed to the petitioner consistently with the stand taken by the Head of the Department and referred to above, explaining the reason why the earlier disclosure might have enabled the petitioner to submit a tailored medical certificate to explain away the shortage. The Committee of Tutorials met again on April 5, 1978, and in accordance with the minutes of the meeting, the cases of various students, who were running short of attendance in seminars or tutorials, and their representations, including the petitioner, were considered and in the case of the petitioner the Committee reiterated its earlier decision taken on March 27, 1978, that she would not be eligible and could appear for the examination next year. By his communication of April 6/7, 1978 the Head of the Department of Sociology informed the petitioner that the representation of the petitioner had been considered by the Committee in the light of the University rules and regulations and the requirements for attendance laid down in Ordinance VII "in the Hand book of the Department of Sociology" and reiterated its earlier decision already conveyed to her vide his letter of March 31, 1978, that she was not eligible to appear for want of compliance "with the minimum requirements of attendance for the full-time regular course of study." The petitioner and certain other students similarly situated as the petitioner made a representation to the Vice-Chancellor invoking the benefit of concession in attendance under Cl. 2 (9) (a) of Ordinance VII on medical grounds and complained that the benefit of this clause had not been given to them by the Department of Sociology. It however, appears that the Dean, Student Welfare, of the University expressed the view in his note of March 10, 1978, that if the medical certificates of these students, including the petitioner, were accepted "they appear to fulfil the attendance requirements of the Ordinance VII (2) (9) (a) but still they are being detained on account of shortage of attendance." The Vice-Chancellor desired that the Pro-Vice-Chancellor and the Head of Department of Sociology may "discuss the matter and give their observations" and the matter be subsequently placed for his consideration. It appears from a note of April 17, 1978, by the Controller of Examination that "the Head of the Deptt. of Sociology explained that that Department had not given the benefit of Medical Certificates submitted by the candidates to them since the Department was not satisfied about the genuineness of the ailments mentioned therein."

(3.) The petitioner seeks to avoid the orders detaining her, even though admitting that she was short of attendance in seminars, on the grounds that the decision, as indeed the proceedings leading to it, were vitiated on account of non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of the principle of audi alteram partem in that full disclosure as to the extent of shortage was not made at the material time with the result that the petitioner was prevented from making any effective representation both before and after the decision and was denied an opportunity of a personal hearing before the authority which made the orders. The petitioner joined issue on the extent of shortage, the true method of computation to determine the minimum requirement of attendance and urged that the petitioner had not been given the benefit of certain provisions of Ordinance VII of the Ordinance of the University, and the relevant provisions set out in the Handbook of Information of the Department of Sociology, and, therefore, contended that the decisions were contrary to these statutory provisions and were liable to be quashed. A strong plea was also made on behalf of the petitioner by her counsel, Shri Aggarwal, with considerable emphasis that the University should not have been rigid with regard to the attendance standards particularly while dealing with post graduate students of the University, who were sufficiently mature and responsible, and that such technical requirements should not be allowed to prevent a student, who was confident of appearing at an examination successfully, from such an attempt.