Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DAILYLAW 2271 (DEL)

ALKA v. NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OR DELHI

2007-09-14

Sanjiv Khanna

body2007
MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, CJ. ( 1 ) ALL these appeals are inter-connected and the issues raised are also identical. These appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. ( 2 ) THE appellants herein were successful in the written test held for admission to the diploma course in Elementary Teachers Education, conducted by the State Council for Educational Research and Training, Government of NCT delhi. After counselling, when admission was denied to the appellants, they filed writ petitions, which were allowed by this Court vide order dated 12th february, 2007 directing the respondents to admit the appellants. In the case of Reena Maan order was passed on 11th December, 2006. Pursuant to the said orders, appellants were granted admission to the said course on 28th February, 2007. However, because of late admission, they did not meet the criterion of minimum percentage of attendance prescribed for appearing in the first year examination and also missed their SEP and,therefore, they were not allowed to appear for the exam. ( 3 ) IN these circumstances, fresh writ petitions were filed by the appellants. The learned Single Judge held that since the appellants did not fulfil the minimum attendance norms nor did they qualify the Students Education programme, they cannot be permitted to be promoted to the next year. However, the learned Single Judge issued a direction permitting the appellants to continue as first year students with a further direction that costs of rs. 15,000/- shall be paid to each of the appellants and the respondents were directed to not collect fees from the appellants for the academic session 2007-08. ( 4 ) THE said order is under challenge in these appeals by the appellants-writ petitioners. ( 5 ) COUNSEL for the appellants states that the appellants are not to be blamed for the fault of the respondents and that they were admitted to the aforesaid course only through the court?s intervention and, therefore, there should have been a waiver of the requirements of the minimum attendance norms and SEP in their cases. Similar arguments were also made before the learned single Judge who found that the aforesaid norms cannot be waived. It is true that the appellants had to approach the Court and only upon Court?s intervention and directions they were admitted to the said course. Similar arguments were also made before the learned single Judge who found that the aforesaid norms cannot be waived. It is true that the appellants had to approach the Court and only upon Court?s intervention and directions they were admitted to the said course. They were given admission under the letter of the respondents dated 28th February, 2007 and they finally took admission on 3rd March, 2007. The learned Single Judge delivered the judgments on 28th February, 2007 and 11th December, 2006. However, there are mandatory pre-conditions for allowing any student to appear in the examination and for promotion to second year. The said pre-conditions are extracted in the impugned judgment. A conjoint reading of the said conditions makes it clear that even after granting all relaxations, a candidate should have attended at least 75% of the classes to appear in the exam and to be considered for promotion to the second year. The aforesaid norm was not under challenge in the writ petition. Another condition of qualifying the SEP examination is also not satisfied. Waiver of the said mandatory norms cannot be granted. This will affect quality of education and will be detrimental to the entire system. Although appellants cannot be blamed for late admission yet the fact remains that they have not been able to fulfil the minimum attendance norms and that they have missed the SEP. ( 6 ) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference. The interest of the appellants has been protected to the extent possible by the learned Single Judge. ( 7 ) IT is submitted by the counsel appearing for the appellants that they have already paid fees for the second year. They may file applications before the concerned authorities who shall entertain the same and pass appropriate orders, in terms of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and upheld by this Court. With the aforesaid observation, the appeals stand dismissed.