Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Delhi High Court said that the case of students barred from appearing in forth semester with a minor delay in publishing the list of students with short attendance in Deen Dayal Upadhyaya College is of no relevance as delay will not protect the students.
The review petition filed by the seven students of Deen Dayal Upadhyaya College was dismissed by a division bench of Justice S Ravindra Bhat and Justice Sunil Gaur. The students were not allowed to sit in the fourth semester examination by the college principal due to their poor attendance record and the court has earlier rejected their plea.
The bench said that delay in publishing the list of students with short attendance is not a ground to allow the students to appear in the examinations. A single judge passed the order in the favour of the students but later it was reversed by the Division Bench. The review petition was filed by the seven students of B.Com(Hons) against the order of division bench.
The students also approached to the Supreme Court but were directed to approach the High court. Therefore they again approached to High court for the review of judgement of the Division Bench. Their contention was that the Division Bench ignored the regulation of (Ordinance VII(2)(e)) which made it compulsory to issue clear notice to the students before five days. The Division Bench noted that:
“The provision, i.e. Ordinance VII(2)(e) facially suggests that the College is under an obligation to publish the final attendance position at least five days after dispersal of classes on the last calendar day of the academic year. The classes in this case dispersed on April 27. This meant that the final attendance position should have been notified on May 2. The College informed the position of attendance on May 5. The court doesn’t agree with this matter as it said that the college had delayed in publishing for 3 days only and the issue would be of more significance if the attendance record hasn’t shown a significant shortage in the attendance of each of them. But out of seven petitioners four of them were below 50% of their attendance whereas two had slightly over 50% and one of the petitioner had 61.06% of attendance.
So in the Courts opinion the above findings are of no importance as they the publishing of attendance was delayed by 3 days only which couldn’t have resulted any different for them, therefore the findings wouldn’t make any difference for them and it’s not the student’s case the court concluded.
86540
103860
630
114
59824