Madras High Court refuses relief to student seeking attendance condonation [Read Judgment]

Chennai: The Madras High Court has dismissed an appeal from a student seeking condonation of attendance deficiency, emphasizing the importance of maintaining academic standards and regular class attendance.

Madras High Court Ruling on Attendance Condonation: Key Takeaways

Justice R. Subramanian and Justice C. Kumarappan delivered the judgment in the case of a student who failed to meet mandatory attendance requirements.

The case involved K. Shrish, a second-year B.Com student at SRM Institute of Science & Technology, who filed a writ petition seeking permission to write his third-semester examinations despite insufficient attendance.

UGC Attendance Rules: Why Madras HC Denied Relief to SRM Student

The court noted, “An unfortunate student, who wanted to ride two horses but miserably failed, approached this Court seeking condonation of deficiency of attendance.”

Addressing the attendance requirements, the court observed, “The UGC regulation requires 75% attendance, and the condonable limit is only 10%, meaning that a student must have a minimum attendance of 65% to be eligible to appear for the examinations.”

The bench highlighted the student’s severe attendance shortage, stating, “The appellant had only 45.71% and 48.73% attendance during the relevant period. The overall attendance was 57%. Even after adding the 10% condonable limit, the appellant would not reach the required attendance of 65%, let alone 75%.”

The court emphasized its stance on academic matters, declaring, “It has been repeatedly held that in academic matters, this Court will not interfere and will leave it to the wisdom of academicians… If this Court chooses to sympathize with such students, it would be misplaced sympathy and would amount to mocking students who attended classes regularly.”

While dismissing the appeal, the court provided an option for the student’s future, stating, “If the student is willing to re-do the course by paying the required fee, the University shall take him back on its rolls and ensure that he receives a conducive environment for continuing his studies.”

Mr. S. Silambanan, Senior Advocate, appeared for the appellant, while Mrs. P.R. Umamaheswari represented the respondents.

Case Title: K. Shrish vs. The Controller of Examination & Ors.

[Read Judgment]