In The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad R/Special Civil Application No. 15278 of 2018

C/SCA/15278/2018 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15278 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER Sd/-
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to Yes

see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the No

judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law No

as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any
order made thereunder ?
MEET UNDAKAT
Versus
INSTITUTE OF RURAL MANAGEMENT
Appearance:
MR MR BHATT, SR.COUNSEL, FOR M R BHATT AND CO.(5953) for the
PETITIONER(s) No. 1
MR DC DAVE, SR. COUNSEL, FOR MR UN VYAS(9255) for the
RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date : 29/10/2018
ORAL JUDGMENT
Mr. M.R.Bhatt, learned Senior Counsel, with

Mrs. M.M.Bhatt and Mr. Munjaal Bhatt, learned
advocates for petitioner and Mr. D.C.Dave,
learned Senior Counsel with Mr. U.N.Vyas, learned
advocate for respondents.
Page 1
2. The petitioner is a student of respondent

No.1 institute. In present petition, the
petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that:-
“33.(a) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a
writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction to quash and set aside the impugned letter dated
11.09.2018 addressed by Respondent No. 2 and the impugned
letter 14.09.2018 addressed by Director of Respondent No. 1
Institute in the appeal preferred by the Petitioner, marked as
Annexure-A to this petition;
(b) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of

mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction
to quash and set aside the PRM Handbook Rule 6.4 holding the
same to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India;
(c) That pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the

present petition, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to stay the
operation and implementation of the impugned letter dated
11.09.2018 addressed by Respondent No. 2 and the impugned
letter 14.09.2018 addressed by Director of Respondent No. 1
Institute in the appeal preferred by the Petitioner, marked as
Annexure-A to this petition;
(d) That pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the

present petition, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to read down
Rule 6.4 of the PRM Handbook to the extent of granting
permission to the Respondents to condone absence beyond the
prescribed limit in exceptional cases such as the Petitioner’s
case and permit the Petitioner to attend classes from Term II
of the course, provided he clears the examination;
(e) That pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the

present petition, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the
Respondents to make suitable changes in the Examination
procedure so as to carry out a re-examination of the Petitioner
and permit the Petitioner to complete the coming Village
Fieldwork Segment before Term II of the PGDRM Course starts;
(f) In the alternative, direct the Respondent No. 1 Institute

to refund the fees paid by the Petitioner totaling to Rs.
7,58,400/-;
(g) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to award cost the

present petition to the Petitioner.”
3. So far as factual backdrop is concerned, it

has emerged from the record and from rival
submissions that:-
Page 2
3.1 The petitioner applied for admission to the

Post Graduate Diploma in Rural Management Course
with the respondent No.1 institute.
3.2 He was offered admission to said course for

the academic year 2018-2020. The petitioner
secured the admission in May 2018.
3.3 On 23.8.2018, the petitioner met with an

accident. He was admitted to the hospital. On
account of said accident, he was unable to attend
the academic activities viz. lectures and field
work etc. from 23.8.2018 to 7.9.2018.
3.4 Consequently, he missed about eight sessions

in a term.
3.5 Therefore, the institute awarded Grade “I”

for term 1 of PRM39 with an option to join PRM40
(2019-2021) from 1st term subject to the condition
that he would be obliged to pay fees from 1 st term
if the petitioner decided to join PRM40.
3.6 The said decision was conveyed to the

petitioner vide letter dated 11.9.2018.
3.7 It is not in dispute that before taking said

decision neither any intimation (much less formal
notice) was served to the petitioner nor his
Page 3
explanation was called for nor opportunity of

hearing was granted and without any preliminary
and without even informing the petitioner about
proposed action, the respondent took – behind
closed doors – said decision and informed the
petitioner about said decision.
3.8 Since the letter dated 11.9.2018 also

conveyed that the petitioner can prefer appeal,
the petitioner submitted Appeal which came to be
rejected vide letter dated 14.9.2018.
3.9 Against said decisions, the student has taken

out this petition. The petitioner is aggrieved by
the said decision.
4. The factual background and the details about

relevant provisions are summarized by the
petitioner. The details mentioned by the
petitioner read thus:-
“4. The Petitioner was offered admission to the Post Graduate
Diploma in Rural Management (‘PGDRM’) Course for the Academic
Year 2018-2020 in the Respondent No. 1 Institute on 13.05.2018.
A copy of the offer letter dated 13.05.2018 issued by the
Respondent No. 1 Institute to the Petitioner is annexed
herewith and marked as “ANNEXURE-B”.
5. After payment of initial Rs. 25,000/- with regard to

Offer Acceptance Fees, the Petitioner paid the residual amount
of Rs. 7,33,400/- on 26.05.2018. Therefore, the total amount
paid by the Petitioner towards First Year fees for Academic
Year 2018-20 is Rs. 7,58,400/-. It is trite to note that the
parents of the Petitioner have paid the aforesaid amount after
obtaining a loan from the bank, which is currently charging
them interest @8% per annum. A copy of Fees Receipt dated
26.05.2018 issued by the Respondent No. 1 Institute is annexed
herewith and marked as “ANNEXURE-C”.
6. On 28.06.2018, the Petitioner joined the college. While
Page 4
joining the college, the students are given a PRM Handbook,

which provides a road map of the programme and is expected to
assist the students in anticipating the required effort levels
to successfully complete the classroom and field segments. The
PGDRM course requires the students to complete 12 credits in
Term 1. The 12 credits are divided as follows: 5 courses of 2
credits each and 2 courses of 1 credit each, which is followed
by a Village Fieldwork Segment of 6 credits. The Attendance
Rules for Classroom Term Segment are also mentioned in the PRM
Handbook, which is also being impugned in the present petition.
For ready reference, the Attendance Rules for Classroom Term
Segment are reproduced hereinunder:
“6.4 Attendance Rules for Classroom Term Segment

Full or 100% attendance is the norm in all academic
activities, across classroom terms and field segments.
Absenteeism up to 4 sessions in a 2 credit course (and 2
sessions in case of 1 credit course) would invite a
penalty of 0.1 per session. Absenteeism beyond 4 sessions
in a 2 credit course (and beyond 2 sessions in a 1 credit
course) would lead to the candidate being awarded “F”
grade in the course.
Table 7: Attendance Norms and Penalty
Course Type Number of Absence

(Core/Optional/Qualifyin
g Non-Credit)
One-credit Course 1a) Absence<=2: Grade Point
Penalty of 0.1 per session
1b) Absence >2: ‘F’ grade
Two-credit Course 2a) Absence<=4: Grade Point
6.4.1 Provision for condoning of absence: Provision for

condoning the Grade Point Penalty for absence up to 4
sessions in a 2 credit course (and up to 2 sessions in a
1 credit course) is possible only under following
circumstances:
a) Health condition requiring hospitalization.
b) Personal bereavement (immediate bloodline and
spouse)
c) Discharge of Institutional responsibilities
(participation in business school competition and IRMA
events)
The decision to condone absence under the above will be
taken by the PRM Chair as per the attendance rules.
Number of absence, on health ground, personal
bereavement, and discharge of institutional
responsibility, cannot exceed 4 sessions in a 2 credit
course (and 2 sessions in a 1 credit course). An ‘I’
grade will be awarded in that case. The implications of
the ‘I’ grade in a course are the following:
a) The student will not proceed to the next classroom
or field term and;
b) The student will have to join the same term from
the next academic year and will have to pay the
applicable fees for the remaining terms of the programme.
6.4.2 Recording of attendance: Students must record their
attendance in every classroom session. Updated Attendance
Page 5
sheet will be scanned and uploaded every Saturday on the

Student Z driver. It is the duty of the student to check
her/ his attendance record and report anomalies (if any)
with the PRM office by the following Monday, 5:00 PM. Any
anomaly brought to the notice of the PRM Office after the
stated deadline will not be admissible.
Attendance rules during the VFS and SIS terms are
explained in the subsequent sections.”
A copy of the PRM Handbook issued by the Respondent No. 1
Institute for the year 2018-20 is annexed herewith and marked
as “ANNEXURE-D”.
7. On 23.08.2018, the Petitioner alongwith his friends met

with an accident at around 10 PM while coming back to college
after having dinner off campus. Considering the grave impact of
the accident, someone from the public called ‘108 Ambulance’
and the Petitioner was admitted to Zydus Hospital, Anand on
23.08.2018 night itself.
8. On 24.08.2018, the parents of the Petitioner came down

from Rajkot to visit the Petitioner in the morning itself. On
consultation, the doctors at Zydus Hopsital after examination
suggested a rest for a period of 7 days from 26.08.2018. A copy
of the Certificate issued by Zydus Hopsital, Anand is annexed
herewith and marked as “ANNEXURE-E”.
9. Since the Petitioner was concerned about his attendance

as stated under the PRM Handbook, his father visited the
Respondent No. 1 Institute in the evening at around 5 pm to
meet the PRM Chair i.e. Respondent No. 2. The father of the
Petitioner raised a specific concern with regard to rumors of
one Mr. Paramjeet being discussed, who was allegedly instructed
by the Respondent No. 1 Institute to leave the Institute and
join again next year on account of his illness. To this,
Respondent No. 2 orally assured the father of the Petitioner
that no such decision would be taken in the case of the
Petitioner and the case of Mr. Paramjeet was on a different
footing altogether as he had not attended college for more than
5 and a half weeks, due to which the Respondent No. 1 Institute
was constrained to take such harsh steps. He further instructed
the father of the Petitioner to stay with the Petitioner at the
present moment and take care of his health, adding that he
shall be visiting the hospital in the evening. Accordingly,
Respondent No. 2 visited Zydus Hospital later in the evening,
where he chastised the Petitioner for making his father run to
college for the aforestated concern instead of taking care of
his health. The Respondent No. 2 further offered an ‘option’ to
the mother of the Petitioner to shift to the Respondent No. 1
Institute for future treatment. It is respectfully submitted
that this option was not offered with the intention to even
slightly suggest that it would be better if the Petitioner came
back to the Respondent No. 1 Institute or else there would be
problems caused with regard to his attendance. Soon after
giving this option, Respondent No. 2 suggested the Petitioner
and his parents to visit another hospital namely Anand
Orthopedic Hospital for further treatment. The Petitioner
understands that the suggestion provided by the Respondent No.
2 was made in benevolent interest.
10. Following the Respondent No. 2’s advice, the Petitioner

took a discharge from Zydus Hospital on 25.08.2018 and
Page 6
consulted Anand Orthopedic Hospital on 25.08.2018 itself. A

copy of the Ambulance Receipt evidencing the transfer from
Zydus Hospital to Anand Orthopedic Hospital dated 25.08.2018 is
annexed herewith and marked as “ANNEXURE-F”.
11. On consultation, the doctors of Anand Orthopedic Hospital

suggested that immediate operation would have to be performed
on the right knee of the Petitioner. Owing to this difference
of opinion between two hospitals and primarily feeling
handicapped due to disadvantage of an unknown town, the
Petitioner and his parents took a conscious decision to go back
to their hometown i.e. Rajkot. Accordingly, the Petitioner took
a discharge from Anand Orthopedic Hospital on 25.08.2018 and
reached Rajkot on 25.08.2018 night.
12. On 26.08.2018 morning, the Petitioner was admitted to

Aditya Orthopedic Centre, Rajkot. On inspection, the doctor
preliminary stated that a concrete opinion could be given only
after 10 days. A copy of the report dated 26.08.2018 of Aditya
Orthopedic Centre, Rajkot is annexed herewith and marked as
“ANNEXURE-G”.
13. On 01.09.2018, Aditya Orthopedic Centre suggested

complete bed rest for a period of 6 weeks starting from
26.08.2018 onwards. Frightened more about his absence going
over the prescribed limit, the Petitioner’s uncle called
Respondent No. 2. A copy of the Certificate dated 01.09.2018
issued by Aditya Orthopedic Centre, Rajkot is annexed herewith
and marked as “ANNEXURE-H”.
14. Immediately after issuance of this Certificate, the

father of the Petitioner addressed an email to Respondent No. 2
on 02.09.2018 informing him about the decision of the doctors
for complete bed rest of six weeks. He further requested the
Respondent No. 2 to provide him a suitable time so as to enable
him to discuss the issue of attendance of the Petitioner. A
copy of the email addressed by the father of the Petitioner to
Respondent No. 2 is annexed herewith and marked as “ANNEXURE-
I”.
15. On receipt of the aforesaid email, the Respondent No. 2

called the father of the Petitioner and again assured him about
that no harsh steps will be taken against the Petitioner for
his absence going over the prescribed limit. He further stated
that a Committee will be set up to review the same and that he
shall call the father of the Petitioner within a week, with
added assurance that no further inquiry will have to be made by
the Petitioner.
16. The Petitioner addressed an email dated 04.09.2018 to

Respondent No. 2. It is respectfully submitted that the
contents of the said email are very important for adjudication
of the present case. The following points were highlighted by
the Petitioner is his email:
(i) That his limit of missing 4 lectures is getting over on

05.09.2018.
(ii) Raised concern over same treatment being accorded as
given to Mr. Paramjeet.
(iii) In case Respondent No. 2 wishes, the Petitioner will be
present in class.
Page 7
(iv) Raised serious concern over the fear of dropping a year

on account of attendance issues
(v) Specifically stated that “I don’t want my knee to give me
issues for my lifetime but I will be there when you want
me there”.
No response to the aforesaid mail was received.

A copy of the email dated 04.09.2018 addressed by the
Petitioner to Respondent No. 2 is annexed herewith and marked
as “ANNEXURE-J”.
17. Owing to his serious condition, the Petitioner could not

attend the classes on 05.09.2018, 06.09.2018 and 07.09.2018. As
stated hereinabove, the Petitioner’s limit of missing 4
lectures was ending on 05.09.2018. Therefore, over a span of 2
days i.e. 06.09.2018 and 07.09.2018 the Petitioner missed the
5th lecture in 3 courses namely: Business Statistics &
Analytics, Microeconomics & Rural Society and Polity courses.
18. On a visit to the doctor on 07.09.2018 evening, he

suggested that there was substantial improvement. Owing to this
development, the father of the Petitioner mailed Respondent No.
2 on 07.09.2018 later in the night to inform him about this
development and also stated that he is bringing the Petitioner
back to the Respondent No. 1 Institute on 08.09.2018. A copy of
the email dated 07.09.2018 addressed by the father of the
Petitioner to Respondent No. 2 is annexed herewith and marked
as “ANNEXURE-K”.
19. On 08.09.2018, the Petitioner reached the Respondent No.

1 Institute at around 2.30 PM by which time the classes for
that day had already concluded. The next day (09.09.2018) was a
Sunday.
20. On 10.09.2018, the Petitioner started attending the

classes from morning. The administrative staff of Respondent
No. 1 Institute was very helpful as they provided the
Petitioner a wheelchair for easy access to classes. Since the
Petitioner could not sit upright on the class chair, he was
given a special permission to attend the lectures lying down on
a mattress, which he duly did. A copy of the photographs
evidencing the Petitioner attending the classes lying on a
mattress are annexed herewith and marked as “ANNEXURE-L”.
21. After attending all the classes on 10.09.2018, 11.09.2018

and 12.09.2018, the Petitioner was given the impugned letter
dated 11.09.2018 via email on 12.09.2018, which stated that the
Petitioner has been awarded an “I” grade in Term I of PRM39 on
his missing more than 4 sessions in three courses and has been
given an option to join with PRM40 (2019-21) from First Term
with applicable fees.
22. On 12.09.2018, the Petitioner went to meet the Director

of Respondent No. 1 Institute. It is respectfully submitted
that the Petitioner raised his concerns over the letter to
which the Director stated that he would not be in a position to
help the Petitioner in any manner whatsoever. However, since he
had been given a right to appeal, he may use the same.
23. On 13.09.2018, the Petitioner appealed to the Director of

Respondent No. 1 Institute. A copy of the appeal dated
Page 8
13.09.2018 addressed by the Petitioner to the Director of

Respondent No. 1 Institute is annexed herewith and marked as
“ANNEXURE-M”.
24. On 13.09.2018, a General Body Meeting was called for to

review the decision taken by Respondent No. 2 qua the
Petitioner. The students of the batch alongwith the Petitioner
and Respondent No. 2 attended the General Body Meeting.
However, the Petitioner was restrained from participating in
the said meeting thereby denying bare minimum principles of
natural justice.
25. On 14.09.2018, the Director of Respondent No. 1 Institute

passed the impugned decision in the appeal of the Petitioner.
26. On 19.09.2018, the Petitioner addressed another email to

the Director of Respondent No. 1 Institute requesting him to
reconsider the appeal. A copy of the email dated 19.09.2018
addressed by Petitioner to the Director of Respondent No. 1
Institute is annexed herewith and marked as “ANNEXURE-N”.
27. On 23.09.2018, the Director of Respondent No. 1 Institute

replied to the email dated 19.09.2018 of the Petitioner under
which a ground that since accommodation facilities at the
Institute were not utilized by the Petitioner, it had resulted
in this harsh decision against the Petitioner was taken for the
first time. A copy of the email dated 23.09.2018 addressed by
the Director of Respondent No. 1 Institute to the Petitioner is
annexed herewith and marked as “ANNEXURE-O”.”
4.1 The respondents have opposed the petition. So

as to support and justify the decision, an
affidavit is filed wherein it is averred and
claimed that:-
“4. Term I of the PRM Programme comprises of three
segmentsclassroom segment and Village Field Work segment and
Summer Internship segment. During the classroom segment of
Term-I, a student is required to undergo classroom-based
training for 10 (ten) courses. Whilst, the student is required
to obtain minimum academic standards for all the courses, one
of the courses (i.e. Research Methods) is a. non-qualify'ing
course Whose credits are not considered in awarding the post-
graduate diploma. Out of the remaining 7 (seven) courses, 5
(five) courses are for 2 credits and 2 (two) courses are for 1
credit. The number of sessions conducted for each of the
course are as under:
a. 2 credits course: For every 2 credits course, 20

sessions of 90 minutes each are conducted during the
classroom segment of Term-I;
b. 1 credit course: For every 1 credit course, 10

sessions of 90 minutes each are conducted during the
classroom segment of Term-I.
Page 9
5. The attendance norms permitting absenteeism up to 4

sessions for a 2 credits course and 2 sessions for 1 credit
course translates into an attendance requirement of 80% for the
classroom-segment of Term I. As per the PRM Handbook, it is
mandatory that a student attends all sessions of the classroom
segment. For every session that a student misses he /she is
liable for a penalty of 0. 1 grade points However, an
attendance shortfall of up to 20% can be condoned by the
Respondent
No. 2 for the following reasons only:
a. Health condition requiring hospitalization;

b. Personal bereavement (immediate bloodline or spouse);
c. Discharge of institutional responsibility (participation
in business school competition and IRMA events)
6. Therefore, if the absenteeism of the students is for any

of the aforesaid reasons, he / she may not be imposed the
prescribed penalty of 0.1 grade point per session; provided
absenteeism is within the aforesaid permissible limit in terms
of session.
7. Further, in the event a student fails to attend the required

number of sessions, without reasons as specified above, he /she
will be declared as ‘Failed’ and awarded ‘Grade F’ and will be
required to repeat the entire academic year and pay full fee.
However, in the event a student fails to attend the required
number of sessions on account of reasons as specified above, he
/ she will be awarded ‘Grade I’ and permitted to join the PRM
Programme from the same Term from the subsequent academic year.
The student is not charged fee for the terms successfully
completed.
8. However, absenteeism in excess of 4 sessions for a 2

credits course and 2 sessions for a 1 credit course cannot be
condoned and necessary
implication as per the PRM Handbook shall follow.
11. With reference to the contention of the Petitioner

that the Petitioner was not issued any warning / show-cause
notice prior to the decision reflected from the communication
dated September 11, 2018, it deserves to be mentioned that it
is undisputed that the Petitioner has failed to comply With the
attendance norms prescribed. Therefore, in such circumstances
wherein there is no dispute as to the factual matrix, any show
cause notice would pale into insignificance. The Petitioner was
always aware that absenteeism in excess of 20% cannot be
condoned by any authority for any reason whatsoever. Therefore,
the moment the Petitioner remained absent over and above the
permissible sessions even for genuine reasons, he would
automatically be given an ‘I Grade’. Further, every student has
access to his / her attendance records updated on a weekly
basis in order to enable the student to monitor his / her own
attendance. Therefore, it is the duty of the student to ensure
that he /she is compliant with the attendance requirement. In
these peculiar circumstances no show-cause notice is
warranted.”
4.2 It is pertinent to note that even the

respondent acknowledges that the petitioner was
Page 10
unable to attend academic activities, lectures,

field work, etc. on account of accident i.e.
reason beyond his control. This is evident from
para 15 of the said affidavit wherein respondent
has mentioned that:-
“15. At this juncture, apropos and in furtherance to the
aforesaid it would not out of place to mention that the
condition of the Petitioner was admittedly such that would
render him incapable of focussing on his academics. In such a
scenario, it was an apt and conscious decision of the
Petitioner to take rest and recover fully. Given the medical
condition envisaged by the Petitioner, he was in no position to
cope up with the academic activities at Respondent No. 1. Here,
it would be pertinent to mention that during Term-I, the
classroom segment was scheduled from July 2018 to September,
2018 for a period of only ten weeks. In such a rigorous
schedule, the Petitioner missed 2 weeks amounting to 20% to the
total segment that too in the midst of the session from August
23, 2018 to September 8, 2018. In such peculiar facts and
circumstances, it is beneficial for the Petitioner to resume
his studies from the next academic year.”
4.3 With reference to petitioner's challenge

against Rule 6.4, the respondent has come out
with below quoted explanation/defence:
“13. With respect to the contention of the Petitioner that
Respondents are erring in the application of Rule 6.4 of PRM
Handbook for PRM 39 it deserves to be mentioned that the same
is misconceived. According to the Petitioner, upto 4 sessions
being absented in a two-credit course, the only penalty which
can be provided is “F” Grade. Subsequent to such 4th
absenteeism and only in the event of circumstances (a) to (c)
as enumerated in Clause 6.4.1 being available, a discretion is
given to the PRM Chair i.e. Respondent No. 2 herein to condone
the absenteeism. Thus, after absenteeism for first 4 sessions
and on award of “F” Grade, in the event there is a further
absenteeism for further 4 sessions, due to, for example health
condition requiring hospitalization, such absenteeism can be
condoned. Only thereafter, that is in the event the number of
absenteeism on health ground etc. exceeds 8 sessions, i.e. 4 +
4, an “I” Grade would be awarded.
14. With profound respect the aforesaid interpretation if

permitted to be take effect would be prejudicial to the
interest of the Petitioner. Assuming without admitting that
interpretation suggested by the Petitioner is in fact the
correct interpretation then the Petitioner stands to be awarded
“F Grade” in three courses which would put him in a precarious
position wherein he will be declared as a failed student and
made to repeat first year with PRM 40 with that status itself.
In the event, the Petitioner fails to meet the academic
requirements in PRM 40, he would automatically be withdrawn
Page 11
from the PRM Programme and will have to compete with the
external students again for being admitted. A “Grade I”
however, will have no effect on his academic records and he
will be permitted to join PRM 4O afresh as if he was admitted
with that batch only on account of incomplete course.”
“18. With reference to the contention of the Petitioner that
Rule 6.4 arbitrary and discriminatory it deserves to be
mentioned that the same is devoid of merit. The Petitioner is
unable to show that how Rule 6.4 ex-facie treats equals
unequally. The students pursuing their studies with Respondent
No. 1 are a homogenous class. Rules enshrined in the PRM
Handbook are made applicable to all students without exception.
Therefore, in the absence of any material to show that the
Petitioner was treated differently from any other student
placed similarly, the present Petition deserves to be dismissed
on that count alone. Further, it is also the contention of the
Petitioner that Rule 6.4 is harsh and stringent. With respect
to the said contention, it deserves to be mentioned that mere
hardship is no ground under Article 14 of the Constitution of
India unless it is shown that the Petitioner was treated
differently in comparison to a student similarly placed.
19. With reference to the contention of the Petitioner that

the attendance norms of Respondent No. 1 are not in consonance
with the Model Curriculum Programme Structure prescribed by All
India Council of Technical Education (AICTE) and hence deserve
to be read down, it deserves to be mentioned that the said
contention is also devoid of any merit. The Model Curriculum
and Programme Structure of AICTE prescribes the minimum
standards required to be followed by an institution. However,
it is always the prerogative of Respondent No. 1 to prescribe a
standard higher than the minimum requirements prescribed by
AICTE. Therefore, unless and until the standards prescribed by
Respondent No. 1 are touted to be inferior to the norms
prescribed by AICTE, the same cannot be faulted with. Further,
insofar as the contention of the Petitioner regarding scope for
re-examination is concerned, the same is also devoid of
substance. Respondent No. 1 does conduct re-examination for
students Who have missed their examination for reasons beyond
their control provided that they fulfill the basic norms
essential for appearing in the examination. The Petitioner does
not fulfill the attendance norms for being eligible to appear
in the examination. Therefore, the issue of consideration of
re-examination does not arise.”
4.4 The respondent has also tried to explain the

implementation of Rule 6.4. On this count, the
respondent has averred and stated that:-
“15. The manner in which Rule 6.4 is being implemented is as
follows:
a. 100 % attendance is a norm in Respondent No. 1

Institute. Therefore, in the event a student misses any
session Without reasons as provided for in the rule
itself, 0.1 grade points is deducted from his final grade
point for that particular course per absence.
b. A student is permitted to be absent for upto 4
Page 12
sessions in a two-credit course and up to 2 sessions in a

one credit course, subject to deduction as above.
c. If a student remains absent or upto 4 sessions in a

two-credit course and up to 2 sessions in a one credit
course with genuine reasons provided under the rule
itself, his absence will be condoned meaning thereby, the
penalty of 0.1 grade point will not be imposed for such
absence in which the student could not remain present for
reasons provided in the rule itself.
d. However, in the event, absenteeism of a student

exceeds or 4 sessions in a two-credit course or 2
sessions in a one credit course, for any reason
whatsoever, he / she shall be awarded “Grade I” With an
option to the student to to join the same term from the
next academic year and Will have to pay the applicable
fees for the remaining terms of the programme.
16. Therefore, condonation as referred to in Rule 6.4 is

condonation only as to deduction of 0.1 grade point. However,
such condonation would have no application if absenteeism of a
student exceeds or 4 sessions in a two-credit course or 2
sessions in a one credit course.
17. At the last, assuming without admitting that two

interpretations of Rule 6.4 are possible. In that event, the
interpretation of the academic body, Respondent No. 1 deserves
acceptance.”
4.5 Subsequently, the petitioner came out with

the instances wherein, according to the
petitioner, the respondent condoned the absence
and sanctioned the term of the student and/or the
institute conducted re-examination and allowed
concerned student to appear in re-examination. So
as to substantiate such submission, the
petitioner, in his additional affidavit,
mentioned that:-
“1. That I am filing this additional affidavit for the
limited purpose to place on record and highlight the fact that
there is a clear violation of Article 14 0f the Constitution of
India in the present case in as much as the Petitioner has been
placed on a different footing and a differential treatment has
been meted out as compared to particular students of the
Respondent No.1 Institute. I respectfully submit that a student
by the name of Mr. AbhishekRajan from PRM 34 Batch met with an
accident in the month of October 2014 and had permanently
damaged his spine. Due to this accident, he was not in a
position to continue his PRM course and also had to miss his
end term exams for the 4th term, along with missing two months
Page 13
of MTS segment and around 7 to 8 days of course work in the 5th

term as well. HoWever, looking at his peculiar situation and
taking into cognizance the fact that he was undergoing
hospitalization, the Respondent No.1 Institute was considerate
in allowing him on humanitarian grounds to reappear for the 4th
term exams. Moreover, MTS segment, which Mr. Rajan had missed,
was reorganized for him in the month of May June 2015.
2. I further state that as per information received from

reliable sources, two students from PRM 36 Batch had
encountered with a similar situation as being faced by the
Petitioner herein. The two students being referred to had met
with an accident, leading them to miss more than the prescribed
limit of sessions. Pursuant to this, the then PRM Chair had
sought the indulgence of the then Director and condoned the
absence of the said students on account of them being
hospitalized due to an accident, which was beyond their control
and had further carried out a re-examination for them.”
4.6 Of course, said allegations are vehemently

denied by the respondent in the rejoinder
affidavit.
4.7 The respondent has dealt with the

petitioner’s submission with regard to Rule 6.4.
In para Nos.13 and 14 of the rejoinder affidavit,
the respondent has averred and stated that:-
“13. With respect to the contention of the Petitioner that
Respondents are erring in the application of Rule 6.4 of PRM
Handbook for PRM 39 it deserves to be mentioned that the same
is misconceived. According to the Petitioner, upto 4 sessions
being absented in a two-credit course, the only penalty which
can be provided is “F” Grade. Subsequent to such 4th
absenteeism and only in the event of circumstances (a) to (c)
as enumerated in Clause 6.4.1 being available, a discretion is
given to the PRM Chair i.e. Respondent No. 2 herein to condone
the absenteeism. Thus, after absenteeism for first 4 sessions
and on award of “F” Grade, in the event there is a further
absenteeism for further 4 sessions, due to, for example health
condition requiring hospitalization, such absenteeism can be
condoned. Only thereafter, that is in the event the number of
absenteeism on health ground etc. exceeds 8 sessions, i.e. 4 +
4, an “I” Grade would be awarded.
14. With profound respect the aforesaid interpretation if

permitted to be take effect would be prejudicial to the
interest of the Petitioner. Assuming without admitting that
interpretation suggested by the Petitioner is in fact the
correct interpretation then the Petitioner stands to be awarded
“F Grade” in three courses which would put him in a precarious
position wherein he will be declared as a failed student and
Page 14
made to repeat first year with PRM 40 with that status itself.
In the event, the Petitioner fails to meet the academic
requirements in PRM 40, he would automatically be withdrawn
from the PRM Programme and will have to compete with the
external students again for being admitted. A “Grade I”
however, will have no effect on his academic records and he
will be permitted to join PRM 4O afresh as if he was admitted
with that batch only on account of incomplete course.”
5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner

submitted that:- the decision conveyed to the
petitioner vide communication/order dated
11.9.2018 as well as the order and the decision
dated 14.9.2018 are unjustified and arbitrary;
and that the said decisions are also contrary to
or not in consonance with relevant provision in
the PRM Hand Book (Rules). He, in the
alternative, submitted that the provision which
is invoked by the authorities is unjust and harsh
and it is also violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India and therefore, it deserves
to be quashed or read down. The learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner would also claim that
his absence from 23.8.2018 to 7.9.2018 was forced
absence on account of reasons beyond his control
and that on account of accident he was
temporarily completely incapacitated during said
period. He also submitted that he did not skip
the classes or he did not voluntarily abstain
from academic activities (including lectures and
field work) but due to the accident, he was
unable to attend the lectures and/or field work
and other academic activities. While the
petitioner conceded that his absence is for more
Page 15
than four sessions, he also submitted that the

respondent authority has power to condone such
absence but the authorities have arbitrarily
refused to condone his absence. The petitioner
would urge that the authority should act in just
and reasonable manner and condone the absence.
The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
also claims and asserts that he has been treated
differently and he is discriminated. He also
emphasized certain instances to support said
allegation and he prayed for similar treatment.
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also
claimed that the Rules are not in consonance with
the model rules prescribed by AICTE and that
therefore, the said rules should be read down and
brought in consonance with the model rules framed
by AICTE or should be construed in just and
reasonable manner. So as to support his
submission that in exercise of writ jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
judicial review is permissible in respect of
administrative action as well as Rules framed by
private institution and non statutory duties or
non statutory rules are also amenable to writ
jurisdiction, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner placed reliance on the decision in
case of Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas
Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust &
Ors. v. V.R.Rudani & Ors. [(1989) 2 SCC 691]. In
Page 16
light of the fact that the petitioner was

permitted to attend the classes and academic
activities after 7.9.2018 and that once he was
permitted to attend the classes, the respondent
cannot deny the permission to appear in final
examination and/or respondent cannot award Grade
“I” and cannot refuse to sanction the term,
learned senior counsel for the petitioner relied
on the decision in case of Shri Krishnan v. The
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra [(1976) 1 SCC
311].
6. Per contra, Mr. Dave, learned Senior Counsel

for the respondents submitted that the facts are
not in dispute, inasmuch as the fact that the
petitioner did not attend academic activities
including lectures and field work is not in
dispute. He further submitted that though it is
true that the petitioner could not attend the
academic activities on account of accident, it
is, however, equally true that the Rules do not
envisage absence beyond permissible limit and the
Rules further provide that in case absence
crosses the permissible limit, in that event, the
student would be awarded either Grade 'I' or
Grade 'F' as the case may be. He submitted that
in present case, the petitioner is awarded Grade
'I' and thereby his admission to the institute is
protected and he is not declared fail. So as to
Page 17
reply to the allegation about different treatment

or discrimination, learned Senior Counsel for the
respondents relied on the explanation and factual
aspects mentioned in rejoinder affidavit and he
further submitted that the instances mentioned by
the petitioner are not comparable with his case
and one of the instance was considered and
decided under the provisions of erstwhile Rules
and not the Rules which are presently in force.
With regard to provision under Rule 6.4, 6.4.1
and 6.4.2 and its implementation, learned Senior
Counsel for the respondents reiterated (rather he
read over) the submissions in the reply
affidavit.
Mr. Dave, learned Senior Counsel for the
respondents submitted that under said Rules, the
power of the competent authority to condone
absence is restricted and limited and absence of
the petitioner crossed not only permissible
limit, but his absence also crossed the limit of
competent authority's power to condone absence.
So as to support and justify his submission
that the competent authority cannot condone
absence beyond the limit prescribed by the Rules,
learned Senior Counsel for the respondents relied
on the decisions in cases of Teri Oat Estates (P)
Ltd. v. U.T.Chandigarh & Ors. [2004 (2) SCC 130],
Regional Engineering College, Hamirpur & Anr.v.
Ashutosh Pandey [2002(9) SCC 720], Ashok Kumar
Page 18
Thakur v. University of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.

[1973 (2) SCC 298] and decision by High Court of
Delhi in case of Ankita Meena v. University of
Delhi [W.P.(c)5194 of 2018].
7. I have considered rival submissions and

impugned decisions, the provision on which
learned Senior Counsel relied and other material
available on record including the affidavits.
8. The decision against which the petitioner has

taken out present petition i.e. the decision with
which the petitioner is aggrieved (viz. order
dated 11.9.2018 and order dated 14.9.2018) read
thus:-
“ 11.9.2018
Dear Mr. Meet Unadkat,
PRM Committee met and discussed your case sympathetically.

After discussion, PRM Committee decided that as you have
already missed more than 4 sessions in Business Statistics &
Analytics, Microeconomics & Rural Society & Polity courses, you
will be awarded an “I” grade in Term I of PRM39 with an option
of joining with PRM40 (2019 -21) from first term. Applicable
fees will be charged from you if choose to join with PRM4O from
first term.
However you reserve the rights to make an appeal to The

Director, IRMA, against the above mentioned decision of PRM
Committee by September 13, 2018 (before 5.00 pm).
With best wishes.

Sd/-
(Vivek Pandey) “
- - - - - - -
“14 September 2018
dear meet,
first and foremost, I am sorry that you had an accident and

serious injuries. it was a sheer bad luck. many times things
happen in our lives for which we have little explanation.
Page 19
I have gone through both the attachments forwarded by you. I

also met you in person day before yesterday. I also met your
parents yesterday.
while I have full sympathy with you, I will follow the handbook
and invite you to join IRMA with PRM 40.
please get well soon and do not push yourself too hard with the
serious injury you have had. in case you apply to any place for
short term job, you may give my name as a referee. I have no
issues with you at personal level and in fact it was nice to
meet you in a group of elected reps of PRM 39 a few weeks back.
it is just that I take a decision which I will not regret
taking when another similar case comes up in future, for which
this one becomes a precedence.
all of us at IRMA, apart from being teachers are also

individuals with our own views and what we say in the class
( or out) is from our individual perspective. That certainly
does not reflect the official view of IRMA which is governed by
intensely discussed documents like the PRM Handbook.
I wish you good luck.

with sincere regards
hitesh bhatt.”
8.1 The provision which is referred to by the

respondent i.e. Rule 6.4 and 6.4.1 and 6.4.2 read
thus:-
“6.4 Attendance Rules for Classroom Term Segment
Full or 100% attendance is the norm in all academic
activities, across classroom terms and field segments.
Absenteeism up to 4 sessions in a 2 credit course (and 2
sessions in case of 1 credit course) would invite a
penalty of 0.1 per session. Absenteeism beyond 4 sessions
in a 2 credit course (and beyond 2 sessions in a 1 credit
course) would lead to the candidate being awarded “F”
grade in the course.
Table 7: Attendance Norms and Penalty
Course Type Number of Absence

(Core/Optional/Qual
ifying Non-Credit)
One-credit Course 1a) Absence<=2: Grade Point
Two-credit Course 2a) Absence<=4: Grade Point
6.4.1 Provision for condoning of absence: Provision for

condoning the Grade Point Penalty for absence up to 4
sessions in a 2 credit course (and up to 2 sessions in a
1 credit course) is possible only under following
circumstances:
a) Health condition requiring hospitalization.
Page 20
b) Personal bereavement (immediate bloodline and

spouse)
c) Discharge of Institutional responsibilities
(participation in business school competition and IRMA
events)
The decision to condone absence under the above will be
taken by the PRM Chair as per the attendance rules.
Number of absence, on health ground, personal
bereavement, and discharge of institutional
responsibility, cannot exceed 4 sessions in a 2 credit
course (and 2 sessions in a 1 credit course). An ‘I’
grade will be awarded in that case. The implications of
the ‘I’ grade in a course are the following:
a) The student will not proceed to the next
classroom or field term and;
b) The student will have to join the same term
from the next academic year and will have to pay
the applicable fees for the remaining terms of the
programme.
6.4.2 Recording of attendance: Students must record their

attendance in every classroom session. Updated Attendance
sheet will be scanned and uploaded every Saturday on the
Student Z driver. It is the duty of the student to check
her/ his attendance record and report anomalies (if any)
with the PRM office by the following Monday, 5:00 PM. Any
anomaly brought to the notice of the PRM Office after the
stated deadline will not be admissible.
Attendance rules during the VFS and SIS terms are
explained in the subsequent sections.”
9. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to

take note of the clarification/admission by the
respondent viz. (a) the respondent conducts re-
examination in certain cases; and (b) there are
no set Rules framed by the respondent institute
for conducting re-examination.
According to the petitioner, this gives wide
room to the respondents to act as per their
discretion and differentiate amongst the students
and decide cases of similarly placed students
differently.
9.1 Though no discussion, much less about the

provision, emerges from impugned orders the
Page 21
respondent institute through learned Senior

Counsel and through affidavit claims that the
power of the authority to condone absence is
restricted and limited and that therefore, the
authority cannot condone absence beyond the
permissible limit. The said or any other reason
are not mentioned in the letters dated 11.9.2018
and/or 14.9.2018. It is also claimed that the
petitioner’s absence exceeded the permissible
limit and therefore, the authority is not
authorized or competent to condone such absence.
None of the said grounds with reference to the
decision emerge from / exist in the said letters.
9.2 Actually, the letter dated 11.9.2018 and/or

the communication dated 14.9.2018 do not contain
and do not reflect any reason with reference to
and/or in support of the decision. The said
letters do not contain and do not reflect even
discussion about the provision its ambit, scope,
applicability and its actual implementation and
operation.
In light of such fact, the petitioner claims
that the submissions put forward by means of
affidavit are afterthought and improvisation and
the petitioner is not heard on any point and he
never got opportunity to put-foward his
submission with regard to the Rules.
Page 22
9.3 The principal and relevant facts are not in

dispute. It is not in dispute that the petitioner
came to be admitted in the Post Graduate Diploma
in Rural Management Course, in May 2018 (for the
academic year 2018-2020).
9.4 It is also not in dispute that in August 2018

(on 23.8.2018), the petitioner met with an
accident and he suffered multiple injuries.
Consequently, he was unable to attend all
academic activities including lectures and field
work for about 13 days, i.e. from 23.8.2018 to
7.9.2018. It is also not in dispute that
petitioner's absence was not an instance of
indiscipline, irresponsible act/conduct,
negligence, disregard to authority or Rules or
discipline. It was, purely, accidental and on
account of reasons and circumstances, beyond
petitioner's control.
9.5 The petitioner has alleged that he was

assured by the Chairman of PRM Committee that his
absence will not be matter of concern and he
should not feel concerned or worried and he would
not be disentitled or declared in-eligible for
final examination.
The respondent has denied said allegations
and asserted that such assurance was not given
and that even otherwise, the Chairman of PRM
Page 23
Committee does not have any authority to extend

such assurance and that any officer of the
respondent institute cannot offer any assurance
contrary to or beyond the rules.
9.6 It is not in dispute that the respondent

institute has prescribed certain provision with
regard to the attendance/minimum attendance.
9.7 The said provision also confers power to

condone absence.
9.8 According to respondent, the extent of power

(to condone the absence of any student) is
restricted and that therefore, the authority
cannot condone absence beyond the permissible
limit.
10. At this stage, it is necessary to note that

such discussion or such reasoning or such
justification does not emerge from, flow from and
is not reflected from the orders or any other
material. Such justification is given birth to
and brought out for first time by way of
affidavit and reasons/justification which do not
exist in and are not found from the order are
supplemented and order are improved upon by means
of affidavit.
Page 24
10.1 Though the hand-book does not contain any

provision for re-examination, it is not in
dispute that in past, in several cases, the
institute has exercised discretion and conducted
re-examination and allowed the students to answer
re-examination.
10.2 However, said request by the petitioner is

rejected by the respondent.
10.3 The facts related to petitioner’s absence are

not in dispute. Likewise, the reason on account
of which the petitioner could not attend the
academic activities, lectures, field work, etc.
is also not in dispute.
10.4 Even the respondent does not dispute that the

petitioner was unable to attend the institute and
academic activities on account of the
circumstances which were, undisputedly, beyond
the control of the petitioner.
10.5 The case on hand is not a case where a

student skipped the classes without any good
reason or justification or out of sheer
negligence or with irresponsible conduct and
attitude.
10.6 Actually, the petitioner has demonstrated and
Page 25
emphasized the pressure which he suffered and has

undergone on account of his inability to attend
the lectures and academic activities.
10.7 There cannot be any dispute with regard to

the submission that the case where the student is
unable to attend the classes on account of
circumstances beyond his control (e.g. on account
of hospitalization), should be differentiated
and treated differently from the cases where a
student irresponsibly skips the lectures without
any justification.
10.8 At the same time, it also cannot be ignored

that if the Rules curtail the authority’s
discretion and power to condone absence and
specifically impose restriction on such power,
then the authority cannot condone absence beyond
the permissible limit.
10.9 It is not for the Court to decide as to

whether such limit should be prescribed under the
Rules and/or what should be the extent of
power/discretion even in respect of cases which
fall in the category of hospitalization, death,
etc.
10.10The institute alone is qualified and

competent and entitled to make appropriate
Page 26
provision after taking into account all

eventualities.
10.11In a given case, particular provision may

cause hardship to the student, whereas in other
case, it may appear that the cut-off line should
be more liberal or lenient.
10.12 However, the Court cannot substitute its

own view for that of the institute and Rules
cannot be declare bad in law or unreasonable only
because it cause hardships.
10.13 Such discretion lies within the domain

of the institute and the Court would not cross
the boundary so as to step into the territory
reserved for the institute and the Court would
not substitute its decision or point of view
instead of the Rules framed by the institute.
11. However, in present case, dispute is raised

with regard to (a) denial of opportunity of
hearing; and (b) the manner and method in which
the provision is construed, applied and
implemented from case to case and more
particularly against the implementation of the
Rules to the case of the petitioner and the
treatment given to him.
Page 27
11.1 In view of the fact that besides raising

contention with regard to the provision, its
interpretation, its implementation and manner in
which it is applied to the petitioner's case, the
petitioner has challenged the decision, inter
alia, on the ground that the decision was taken
without granting opportunity of hearing and
without considering his submissions with
reference to the Rules in question.
In this view of the matter, it appears that,
at this stage, present petition can be disposed
of without entering into the controversy raised
against the interpretation and implementation of
the Rules and the manner in which it is applied
in present petitioner's case only by taking the
first/limited issue viz. denial of opportunity of
hearing.
For the reasons mentioned hereafter and also
in light of the fact that the Rules in question
are susceptible to other and different manner
i.e. two views or interpretation of the said
Rules are possible, the authority should have
granted opportunity of hearing to the petitioner
and considered his submissions by taking final
decision. The authority also ought to have
deliberated and discussed possible interpretation
of Rules and recorded its conclusion with
supporting reasons and justification. This is
conspicuously absent in the order. Therefore,
Page 28
this Court is of the view that the case deserves

re-consideration by the authority. The authority
should consider all aspects involved in the case
and the matter may be examined by the authority
from all perspective, including the perspective
which may be placed before the authority.
12. So far as petitioner's grievance is

concerned, the petitioner is aggrieved by two
communications whereby the authority awarded “I”
grade to the petitioner and subsequently the
appellate authority confirmed the said decision.
12.1 The said two letters deserve to be set aside,

firstly on the ground that the decisions are made
without granting opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner and also for the reason that the
orders do not reflect any discussion, with regard
to relevant provision / Rules and the issues
connected with the controversy. Similarly the
said letters also do not reflect the reasons –
grounds to support the decision are not found
from and not reflected from the said letters.
12.2 The first letter dated 11.9.2018 passed by

first authority merely states factual aspect viz.
that the petitioner student missed more than 4
sessions and that therefore he is awarded “I”
grade. The said letter does not reflect any
Page 29
discussion with reference to relevant provision

more particularly with regard to the authority's
power to condone absence as well as reason as to
why the authority did not exercise power to
condone absence of present petitioner or any
other basis or reason for not condoning absence.
12.3 It is pertinent to note that undisputedly the

petitioner could not attend the academic activity
(lectures, field activity etc.) from 23.8.2018 to
5.9.2018 on account of unforeseen circumstances /
events beyond control of the petitioner.
However even the said aspect is not
considered / not discussed. The authorities have
also not discussed as to why absence on account
of such circumstances is not condoned. The reason
for such decision / conclusion is not recored
in / found from the said letters.
12.4 So far as second communication i.e. 14.9.2018

is concerned very same defect, which is inherent
in the first letter, is also present in the
second letter.
12.5 Further 2nd letter is more in nature of

sermon to the student rather then appellate
decision. The letter does not contain / reflect
any discussion and / or reason. There is no
discussion about the scope and ambit of the
Page 30
provision, its operation and implementation.

There is no discussion as to why the petitioner's
case should not be granted and why the power
available under the Rules should not be
exercised. None of the issues and aspects
involved in the case are discussed and any reason
for the decision conveyed to the petitioner are
not recorded in any letter / communication.
12.6 Of course the respondents have tried to

improvise the order and their decision and they
have also tried to supplement reasons, by means
of affidavit.
12.7 The decision and the order of the competent

authority should stand on its own footing. The
reason based on which the authority takes
particular decision should flow from and it
should emerge from and should be reflected from
the order itself and not from the outside source
e.g. affidavit or by means of subsequent
improvisation.
12.8 If the decision itself does not contain and

does not reflect the discussion as well as reason
or any justification of the final conclusion then
such order would be bad in law.
13. In this context reference can be had to the
Page 31
observation by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of

Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. v. The Chief Election
Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors. [(1978) 1 SCC 405]
wherein Hon'ble Apex Court observed, inter alia,
that:-
“8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a
statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds,
its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and
cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of
affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the
beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a
challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought
out....”
(emphasis supplied)
13.1 It appears that in present case both the

communications which are challenged in present
petition and the decision are bereft of any
discussion and reasons.
13.2 The appellate authority's communications is

more in nature of counselling and sermon rather
then discussion and decision (with reasons to
support it) of authority supported by the cogent
and satisfactory and relevant reason.
13.3 There is neither any reference nor discussion

as to why the power available with the authority
is not exercised by the authority and why absence
is not condoned. The order also does not reflect
reason which persuaded the concerned authority to
hold that the case of the petitioner does not
warrant condonation of absence.
Page 32
13.4 When the decision of the authority is likely

to affect academic career of the student then the
need for discussion, reason cannot be ignored or
undermined or even diluted more so because the
decision would also have civil consequences.
13.5 It is not in dispute that the issue on hand

is governed by provision under PRM handbook more
particularly Rule 6.4, 6.4.1 and 6.4.2. It is
also not in dispute that the respondent is
empowered to take decision in accordance with
applicable rules and the authority also has the
power to condone absence.
13.6 This is not a case where authority does not

have power to condone absence.
13.7 Both sides have brought in picture above

mentioned provisions and have put forward their
respective construction of the said provision.
13.8 However, unfortunately, there is nothing in

the order which would even briefly indicate the
concerned authority's reasoning with regard to
the said provision in consonance with one or
other mode or limit of applicability.
13.9 Interestingly, the petitioner has tried to

put forward one construction with regard to the
Page 33
said provision and the manner in which said

provision should be applied whereas the deponent
of the affidavit by respondent suggest another or
different construction of the provision and the
manner in which the rule has to be applied.
13.10However, the communication does not

contain / reflect any discussion on that count
and the decision of the authority on either count
viz. the rule operates in the manner suggested by
petitioner or it operates in the manner suggested
by deponent of the respondent does not emerge
from the said letters. Neither the first
authority nor second authority appear to have
taken into account said provision or deliberated
over said provision and the manner in which it
should be applied to the petitioner's case.
Though affidavits have been filed by the
respondents, however bases of the final decision
do not emerge from the said letters.
13.11Needless to state that if the provision is

such which admits two interpretations or where
apparently the provision is such which is capable
of being understood and interpreted in equally
strong two different ways and two equally strong
and sustainable modes are available and possible
then interpretation which would benefit the
student should be adopted.
Page 34
13.12Unfortunately from the order it does not

come out that the authority considered the
provision from the said perspective or not.
14. Besides this, any contemporaneous material is

not placed on record which would suggest that at
the relevant time, the aspect related to and
involved in the case including above mentioned
provision perspectives were considered and / or
the possible interpretation and manner in which
the provision should be applied was considered
and conscious conclusion after proper
interpretation of the provision was taken.
14.1 Absence of contemporaneous material is very

apparent in present case. Equally apparent is the
respondents' attempt to hide the defects and
lacuna in the said letters and to support and
justify rather supplement the decision by means
of the affidavit. What is not there in the order
is brought in picture or sought to be brought in
picture (by the respondent) by means of
affidavit. This is not permissible.
15. In view of the fact that from the material

available on record of present petition it is
very apparent and clear that the orders are
nonspeaking order and any discussion with regard
Page 35
to the provision, its effect and manner of its

applicability does not come out from the order
and said exercise does not appear to have been
even undertaken by the respondent before taking
decision, this court would at this stage refrain
from expressing any opinion with regard to
meaning and scope of the said provision and / or
about its interpretation or about the manner in
which it should be actually applied in case of
present petitioner and to the facts of his case,
lest it may affect the decision of the competent
authority. Suffice it to say that for reasons
mentioned above impugned decision and said
letters are not sustainable.
15.1 In view of the fact that authority took the

decision without granting opportunity of hearing
to the petitioner and without considering his
submission with reference to the relevant
provision and since the authority passed orders
which are bereft of any discussion, the orders
cannot be sustained and deserve to be set aside.
15.2 As mentioned above, the Court has at this

stage, refrained from expressing any opinion with
regard to the interpretation and manner of
application of the provision in present case, so
that the decision of the authority may not be
influenced or affected in any manner.
Page 36
15.3 In this view of the matter, the Court is of

the view that it would be appropriate that the
concerned authority should pass fresh order after
hearing the petitioner and after considering his
submission with regard to relevant provision as
well as relevant facts of his case and the fact
that the petitioner was unable to attend academic
activities on account of circumstances beyond his
control. In this view of the matter if the case
is remanded to the authority (first authority)
then it would meet with ends of justice.
16. Therefore, following order is passed:-
16.1 In light of foregoing discussion and the

reasons the impugned decision and the letters
dated 11.9.2018 and 14.9.2018 are set aside and
the case is remanded to the first authority for
reconsideration and fresh decision after granting
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
16.2 The authority shall pass fresh order after

taking into account submission by the petitioner,
without being influenced by orders which are
challenged in present petition or details or
submission in the affidavit/s filed by the
respondent.
Page 37
16.3 The authority shall complete the procedure

and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as
possible but not later than one week from the
date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
16.4 For the said purpose the petitioner is

permitted to serve copy of this order to the
competent authority of the respondent.
16.5 The statement by the learned Counsel for the

respondent (recorded in the the order dated
10.10.2018) shall cover the said period till the
date of fresh order.
With aforesaid clarification the petition is

partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the
aforesaid extent.
The petition stands disposed of.
Orders accordingly.
Sd/-
(K.M.THAKER, J)
KDC/Suresh
Page 38

In The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad R/Special Civil Application No. 15278 of 2018

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

In The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad R/Special Civil Application No. 15278 of 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

C/SCA/15278/2018 JUDGMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15278 of 2018

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER Sd/-

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to Yes

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No

3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the No

4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law No

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER

Mr. M.R.Bhatt, learned Senior Counsel, with

2. The petitioner is a student of respondent

(b) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of

(c) That pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the

(d) That pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the

(e) That pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the

(f) In the alternative, direct the Respondent No. 1 Institute

(g) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to award cost the

3. So far as factual backdrop is concerned, it

3.1 The petitioner applied for admission to the

3.2 He was offered admission to said course for

3.3 On 23.8.2018, the petitioner met with an

3.4 Consequently, he missed about eight sessions

3.5 Therefore, the institute awarded Grade “I”

3.6 The said decision was conveyed to the

3.7 It is not in dispute that before taking said

explanation was called for nor opportunity of

3.8 Since the letter dated 11.9.2018 also

3.9 Against said decisions, the student has taken

4. The factual background and the details about

5. After payment of initial Rs. 25,000/- with regard to

6. On 28.06.2018, the Petitioner joined the college. While

joining the college, the students are given a PRM Handbook,

“6.4 Attendance Rules for Classroom Term Segment

Course Type Number of Absence

6.4.1 Provision for condoning of absence: Provision for

sheet will be scanned and uploaded every Saturday on the

7. On 23.08.2018, the Petitioner alongwith his friends met

8. On 24.08.2018, the parents of the Petitioner came down

9. Since the Petitioner was concerned about his attendance

10. Following the Respondent No. 2’s advice, the Petitioner

consulted Anand Orthopedic Hospital on 25.08.2018 itself. A

11. On consultation, the doctors of Anand Orthopedic Hospital

12. On 26.08.2018 morning, the Petitioner was admitted to

13. On 01.09.2018, Aditya Orthopedic Centre suggested

14. Immediately after issuance of this Certificate, the

15. On receipt of the aforesaid email, the Respondent No. 2

16. The Petitioner addressed an email dated 04.09.2018 to

(i) That his limit of missing 4 lectures is getting over on

(iv) Raised serious concern over the fear of dropping a year

No response to the aforesaid mail was received.

17. Owing to his serious condition, the Petitioner could not

18. On a visit to the doctor on 07.09.2018 evening, he

19. On 08.09.2018, the Petitioner reached the Respondent No.

20. On 10.09.2018, the Petitioner started attending the

21. After attending all the classes on 10.09.2018, 11.09.2018

22. On 12.09.2018, the Petitioner went to meet the Director

23. On 13.09.2018, the Petitioner appealed to the Director of

13.09.2018 addressed by the Petitioner to the Director of

24. On 13.09.2018, a General Body Meeting was called for to

25. On 14.09.2018, the Director of Respondent No. 1 Institute

26. On 19.09.2018, the Petitioner addressed another email to

27. On 23.09.2018, the Director of Respondent No. 1 Institute