Why were facts on allowing students with 60% attendance to take exams not disclosed: Bombay HC to Mithibai College

The Bombay high court (HC) has directed Mithibai College to explain why the facts pertaining to allowing students with 60% attendance to appear for the semester

The Bombay high court (HC) has directed Mithibai College to explain why the facts pertaining to allowing students with 60% attendance to appear for the semester 4 exams were not disclosed to the court in its affidavit filed on June 18. The institute had filed the affidavit in response to a petition of a student with 58.9% attendance.

HT Image

The student had sought directions to the college to declare her eligible for the exams, as the institute had allowed students with 60%, through a March 6 decision, to appear for exams and also promoted them. As the college had failed to disclose the fact in its affidavit, the court said it was granting time to the institute to take adequate steps.

A division bench of justice SJ Kathawalla and justice NR Borkar, while hearing a petition filed by the student through video conferencing on Friday, was informed by advocate Harshad Bhadbhade, that though the rules had stipulated 75% overall attendance, the college had permitted students with 60% attendance to appear for the exams. Bhadbhade submitted that his client had an attendance of 58.9% and hence she should also be treated on the same lines as students with 60%.

When the court asked the college why the fact that studnets with 60% attendance could appear for exams had not been disclosed in the June 18 affidavit, institute principal Rajpal Hande was unable to justify the reason.

The June 18 affidavit had stated, “Student/s who secure less than 75% of attendance had to take re-admission in the same semester in the subsequent academic year”. The affidavit signed by Hande had also denied that the college had permitted, “….. students having attendance of 59% to appear in the examination as allegedly stated …… or at all”.

However, in the written submissions filed by the college on June 25, it admitted that students with 60% attendance had been allowed to appear for the exams and promoted too. On being questioned when the decision was taken, Hande said that it was taken on March 6.

In light of these submissions, Kathawalla questioned as to why the March 6 decision was not mentioned in the June 18 affidavit, to which the college submitted that it had been missed out as instructions while preparing the affidavit were given on telephone. Kathawalla observed, “There is no question of any fact being left out because of the alleged telephonic instructions, because statements are made in the said affidavit which are completely contrary to the facts now disclosed, and in any event the principal has signed every page of the said affidavit.”

The bench further observed, “Keeping in view that the matter involves serious issues pertaining to attendance discipline, which the college wants to assert, and also as the same involves the future of several students, we are granting time to the college to take adequate steps in the matter.” The petition has been posted for hearing on June Monday.