Giving a clear message that students must attend classes and those who don’t must not be treated with leniency, the Delhi high court dismissed the petition of 105 students of the School of Planning and Architecture who were not allowed to sit for their examinations due to low attendance.

COMMERCIAL BREAK
SCROLL TO CONTINUE READING

Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw declared that brilliance in creativity was no substitute for regular attendance in classes. “After all, if the petitioners felt that without attending classes they could create and design, they were free to do so. Once they have joined the institute, they are required to conform to the norms thereof and not fall back on the pleas of the course not requiring them to attend classes,” he said.

The court was hearing the plea of 105 Bachelor of Architecture students, who had had petitioned that they be allowed to sit for their exams. The institute had barred the students for not meeting the minimum attendance required.

“Self-study is not sufficient. Even though distance learning has come to be widely accepted as a universal mode of acquiring knowledge, skills and qualifications, traditional form of knowledge dissemination holds great relevance where instructional interference is mandatory. The requirement of minimum attendance is not a mere formality but a term of eligibility to sit for examination,” the court held.

The court added that a minimum attendance of 75% was a requirement by the University Grants Commission.

The students claimed that the institute for the last several years had never sought adherence to any specific attendance schedule and that the students had been led to believe that the institute does not follow a conformist attendance schedule.

But the court refused to sympathise with the students. “If this court on sympathetic grounds were to be persuaded to allow the petition, the next batch of students of the institute would again plead that attendance is not a criteria in the institute. Even if in the past no one was detained on account of attendance, it is no ground for granting indulgence to the petitioners who are violators of the written rules,” the court observed.

The court agreed to the institute’s submission that it is necessary for students to attend classes. “Students of this institute are expected to design buildings, including structural designing, and any slackness in the training of any of the said disciplines can have dangerous consequences not only for the buildings but also its occupants,” the court pointed out.