- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Ashutosh Bharti Others v. Ritnand Balved Education Foundation (Regd) Others
Factual and Procedural Background
These petitions were filed by students who failed to meet the minimum attendance requirements as stipulated under Clause 9 of Chapter II of the Revised Ordinance relating to Conduct and Evaluation of Examinations for various degree and diploma programs at Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University. The clause mandates a minimum aggregate attendance of 75% per semester, with a possible condonation of up to 5% by academic authorities, but prohibits students with less than 70% attendance from appearing in semester-end examinations. Students falling short of attendance are detained, not promoted, and must re-admit and repeat the semester. The petitions challenged the validity of these attendance provisions.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the attendance requirements under Clause 9, including the minimum 75% attendance and the prohibition on students with less than 70% attendance from appearing in examinations, are arbitrary or contrary to law.
- Whether the academic authorities’ power to condone attendance shortages up to 5% is legally valid and reasonable.
- Whether the Court should interfere with the academic policy decisions related to attendance and evaluation standards set by the University.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Regional Engineering College, Hamirpur and Anr. v. Ashutosh Pandey | Limits on the power of academic authorities to condone attendance shortages and the reasonableness of attendance requirements. | The Court relied on this precedent to affirm that the Principal or academic authorities may condone attendance shortage only up to a prescribed limit (5% in the present case) and that students below the minimum attendance threshold cannot be permitted to appear in examinations. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court examined Clause 9’s attendance requirements and found them to be a legitimate academic regulation aimed at maintaining educational standards and ensuring students’ active participation in their courses. It emphasized that attendance is integral not only for academic progress but also for evaluating discipline, behavior, and classroom engagement, which are critical to the educational process. The Court recognized that academic authorities are best placed to set such conditions and that the prescribed attendance threshold is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. It highlighted the settled legal principle that courts should generally refrain from interfering with academic policy decisions unless they are found to be arbitrary or capricious. The Court further noted that the regulation allowing condonation of attendance shortage up to 5% aligns with established legal standards, referencing the Apex Court’s decision in Regional Engineering College, Hamirpur. Consequently, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the University’s attendance rules or the dismissal of these petitions.
Holding and Implications
The petitions challenging the attendance provisions under Clause 9 of the Revised Ordinance are dismissed.
This decision upholds the University’s authority to prescribe and enforce attendance requirements as part of academic standards. It confirms the limited role of courts in interfering with educational policy unless such policies are manifestly arbitrary or unreasonable. The ruling directly affects the petitioners by denying relief and reinforces the importance of compliance with attendance regulations for academic progression. No new precedent was established beyond affirming existing principles regarding judicial restraint in academic matters.
1. In these petitions the students, who have failed in attending the requisite percentage of classes, have challenged the provisions of Clause 9 of Chapter II of Revised Ordinance relating to Conduct and Evaluation of Examinations for Programmes leadingo all Bachelor's/Master's Degrees and Undergraduate/Post Graduate Diplomas following semester system in Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University. Clause 9 reads as under:-
"9. ATTENDANCE A student shall be required to have a minimum attendance of 75% or more in the aggregate of all the courses taken together in a semester, provided that the Dean of the school in case of University Schools and Principal/Director in case of University maintained/affiliated institutes may condone attendance shortage up to 5% for individual student for reasons to be recorded. However, under no condition, a student who has an aggregate of less than 70% in a semester shall be allowed to appear in the semesterend examination.
Student who has been detained due to shortage of attendance shall not be allowed to be promoted to the next semester and he/she will be required to take re-admission and repeat all courses of the said semester with the next batch of students. The Univerity Enrolment number of such student shall however remain unchanged and he or she shall be required to complete the programme in a maximum permissible period of (n+4) semesters as mentioned in Clause 4(c).
Dean of School/Director/Principal shall announce the names of all students who are not eligible to appear in the semester-end examination, at least 5 calendar days before the start of the semester-end examination and simultaneously intimate the same to te Controller of Examinations.
In case any student appears by default, who in fact has been detained by the Institute, his/her result shall be treated as null and void."
2. Thus, out of 100% attendance, a student is required to attend at least 75% of the classes. However, under no condition, a student who has an aggregate attendance of less than 70% shall be allowed to appear in the semester-end examination. A perusaof Clause 9 makes it very clear that if there is a shortage of attendance, then the student shall not be allowed to be promoted to the next semester and will be required to take re-admission and repeat all courses of the said semester with the next batcof students. Apparently this provision has been made to ensure that students maintain the standard of education and do not remain negligent in attending the classes.
3. It may be noted that the grooming up and progressing of the students at the college is an important aspect for assessing the students. Their presence is a must. That system has been recognised all over the world. If the student is not attending thclasses regularly, the teacher will not be in a position to watch the progress of that student. Academic authorities are best judges in the field of education to make suitable rules, regulations or ordinances. It is for the college or the university tput the conditions on the students to attend a particular number of classes so as to be satisfied that the student has attended regular classes and he has taken education at the college/school.
4. Attendance is a must. Curriculum does not mean only examination, but it includes various other aspects such as discipline, behavior in the class room with the teachers and other co-students, answering the questions, time taken for answering the quetions etc. These are the relevant aspects to be taken into consideration by a teacher and this can be done only if a student is attending the classes regularly. The University has prescribed 75% minimum for this purpose and it cannot be said thatit is not in accordance with law or it is an arbitrary provision.
5. If any step is taken towards better educational method and standard, not only the Court should not come in the way, but must command and encourage it. Those who fail to maintain such standard round the year may lose the very valuable year of the youg career, just as they lose if they fail in the examination. Matters of academic judgment are not for the courts to entertain. Better standards are required for learning and it can be only from experiences and different modalities. Educational instittions are the best judges to impose appropriate restrictions and conditions. Merely because the conditions which are imposed may be found inconvenient to some students, it cannot be challenged as being arbitrary. All the students who are appearing in te examinations have attended classes for not less than 75%. Merely because a few students are before the Court, it cannot be said that the rule or regulation is arbitrary.
6. It is a settled law that the High Court should ordinarily be reluctant in interfering with the matters relating to educational institutions imparting education since the decisions taken by the academic body are in the nature of policy decisions unlss the decisions are found to be unreasonable or arbitrary. It is also required to be noted that the regulations have been incorporated on the basis of experience of actual day-to-day working of the educational institutions. It is also recognised thathe Court has limited power to interfere with the internal working of an educational institution imparting education. It is inherent power of the educational institution to make regulations for the purpose of maintenance of not only academic standard, buthe manner and method in which it should be done, including the condition of attending the classes. This has a salutary effect of keeping the students on their guard. One must attend the classes for education. If there is an interference, it would amunt to permitting the students to prosecute the studies or appear at the examination without attending the classes as required.
7. Our attention is invited by the learned counsel appearing for the University to the Apex Court's judgment in Regional Engineering College, Hamirpur and Anr. v. Ashutosh Pandey , wherein the Court was required to exaine such a situation. There, of course, the student did not make any application in the prescribed proforma. However, the Court pointed out that the Principal was right in saying that he had no power to condone the absence in excess of 10%, in additionto 25%. In the instant case, the Principal can condone up to 5% and not beyond that. Therefore, if the attendance is up to 70% and it is approved on condoning 5% of presence by the college authorities or university authorities, it can be taken into conideration by the authorities for permitting a student to appear at the examination and/or prosecute studies further and not otherwise.
8. We find no reasons to entertain these writ petitions. Hence, they are accordingly dismissed.
Alert