Kerala High Court: In a writ appeal filed by the Calicut University (‘University’) challenging the Order of the Court which allowed the writ petition of a student (‘respondent student’) of SEEDAC College (‘College’), a college affiliated to the University, for non-cancellation of his admission due to lack of attendance, the Division Bench of A. Muhamed Mustaque* and Shoba Annamma Eapen, JJ., dismissed the appeal for lack of merits. The Court held that the University cannot assume the role of College Principal and direct to act on their direction.
The respondent student was a B.A. Economics student at the College and was elected in the Senate Election from the constituency of General Council of the University Union. A research scholar in the university questioned the respondent student’s nomination by raising a complaint that the affidavit filed by him mentioned that he is a regular student at the College but was actually working as a project assistant with Thachanattukara Grama Panchayat. Upon a hearing conducted by the University’s Vice Chancellor, the Principal issued an Order to remove the student from the rolls and that his admission be cancelled citing non-attendance of classes. This Order was challenged by the respondent student via a writ petition in the Court. The petition was allowed setting aside the Order of the Principal, as to cancellation of the admission. It was also found in the counter affidavit filed by the Principal that none of the students attended college for the period in question, hence singling out the respondent student was legally unsustainable.
The Court said that an affiliated college is a self-financing college and the complaint raised before the University was in regard to selection as a senate member and if there was no irregularity in the said selecting of a senate member, the University ought to have stopped the matter on the whole.
The Court stated that a self-financing college has authority to maintain discipline in its own college regarding the attendance of the college and clarified that though the College is bound by regulation-based affiliation, there maybe situations where a college may be compelled to take action against the students due to absence, but this decision shall be made by the college. The Bench on perusal of the Calicut University CBCS Regulation noted that a student who is continuously absent for 14 days without sufficient reason and proper intimation to the Principal of the College, shall be removed from the rolls. Therefore, the Court said that the authority to determine the factum of absence from classes is with the Principal of the college and in this case, the Principal had no case that the respondent student did not attend the classes, therefore, the Principal could not have surrendered his freedom to take action against a student, to the University.
The Bench mentioned that in the enquiry conducted by the Vice Chancellor in relation to the conduct of classes online, it was noted that no permission was granted to the College to hold online classes. Resultantly, the students who tookonline classes cannot be punished for the action of the College. The Court also highlighted that there was no University provision barring a student from having a regular engagement or part time engagement.
The Court said that the University in a complaint related to the election to the Senate, overreached the enquiry and directed the Principal to take action in a matter which falls completely under the domain of the Principal of the College. The Court held that the University, in a proceedings challenging the selection of the student in an election matter, cannot collaterally decide a question on non-attendance and decide against the student.
The Court observed that a University’s role in a private college is to the limited extent to ensure that University regulations are followed, and cannot assume the role of Principal and direct the college Principal to act on their direction.
The Court concluded that, the Principal having certified that the respondent student was having sufficient attendance, and there was no statement by the Principal that the student was absent for more than the stipulated relaxation of 14 days, hence the University could not have directed the Principal to cancel his admission.
The Bench, thereby, dismissed the writ appeal citing lack of merit.
[University of Calicut v. Ameen Rashid, 2024 SCC OnLine Ker 1397, Decided on 14-02-2024]
*Judgment Authored by: Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellant: Advocate P.C. Sasidharan
For the Respondent: Advocate P.E. Sajal, Advocate K. Manoj Chandran, Advocate P. Ravindran
