PRINCIPAL, PATNA COLLEGE, PATNA, AND OTHERS versus KALYANI SRINIVAS RAMAN

Citation: [1966] 1 S.C.R. 974 · Decided: 24-09-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

974 
PRINCIPAL, PATNA COLLEGE, PATNA, AND OTHERS 
A 
v. 
KALYAl\i SRINIVAS RAMAN 
Septembu 24, 1965 
IP. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCllOO, M. Hl!HYA-
TULLAH, J. C. SHAH A!'ID S. M. SIKRI, JJ.] 
l'atna Univusity Act, 1951 (25 of 1951), 
s. 3~(bl-RcguJanonJ 
framed under-Rtgulation 4 requiring 75% cllttnJanct in /1ctures, tulorial.J 
.and/or practicals in each suhjtct--Percentaie lvhtther 10 be taken to-
• 
gether in all these or .Ypur,ue/y. 
C 
Certiorari-Jligh Court l1·/irn should interftV(' H'ith decision taken bv 
<ducaJional authorities. 
· 
The respondent who was a student in the colleic of which the fi:1;t 
appellant \\<'!S the Principal, 
w:L~ declared non-eliJible to appear at 1he 
B.A. Part I examination of the Patna Univer.1iry because his at1cndance 
in Geography praclicals was oaly 24% whereas the perC'Cnta~c required 
D 
under Regulation 4 framed by the Academic Council of the Univcr11ty 
was 75%. He filed a writ petition under Art. 226 and obtained from 
the High Court interim orders directin~ the authorities to allow him to 
appear at the examination. On the mems the High Coun held that Wider 
Regulation 4 the ecrcentage of aucndancc in lecture.• tutorial-; and/or 
practicals in a particular subject bad to he taken to11elher and not sepa-
rately and ao taken the respondent'• percentage in the subject of Geo-
graphy as a whole wa.< 66%. The shonage being leat than 15 9'. n wa• 
E 
open to the Vic~hancellor under Regulation 5 to condone it. 
The 
High Coun therefore by a writ 
of certiorari quashed the order of the 
int appellant declaring the respondent non..,ligible for appearing at the 
examination, and directed the authorities 10 refer the question of c.ondona-
tion ot ahortage in attendance to the Vice-<:han~llor and if it wa.• con-
doned to declare respondent's result. 
The appellants came to thia Court 
against thi' order by special Jeavc. 
HELD: (i) The requirement of 75% attendance in lectures tutorial'> 
and practicals has to be read di'junctively and not by taking them all 
toeether. Otherwioe it will be possible for a student in certain subjects to 
comple1.e the percentage required bv attending all the lecture.. and no 
tutorials at all. 
Thi! could not he 1he intcnrion in framing the- Regulation 
and would not he in k~ping with the meth()dology of mo<le.rn education 
\.\'hich lays great stre's on tutorial and practical work. [980 (;; 981 Tl 
(ii) Jr is true that the second clnu.se of Regulath)n 4 rel1lli:-c' th.tt 
the percentage in qucsrion shall he c:..ilcul~rcd on the total numhcr of lec-
tures, tutorials and practic<il~ deli\'ered and provided durini; the "ession; 
hut the provision is in the nature of a mere corollary to the main pr~ 
vision prescrihcd by Regulation 4, and if the requirement a.i to 75o/9 
attendance has been prescribed separately in relation to lectures. tutorials 
and/or practicals. the !;econd clause n1u..'\t .be read ~ccoa·di~f!IY. 
Thu~ read 
it onlv mean9 thJt when the percentage 1s determined WJth reference to 
lecturCs, tutorials and practicals \\·hat ha'\ to be taken into ~tccount is the 
total number of lectur~ delivered, or tutorials or practical!i held during 
the sc.sion. [981 G, HI 
' 
G 
H 
•
--: 
,-::~ 
• 
• 
• 
A 
B 
c 
D 
PATNA COLLEGE v. RAMAN (Gajendragadkar, C.J.) 
975 
(iii) The petitioner filed hia petition under Art. 226 only on the evcn-
io: before the examination had to begin althou&h he could have filed 
it earlier. 
In the circumstances it would have been better if the High 
Court had not passed interim orders, Even on the merits. where the 
question is one of interpreting a regulation framed by the Academic 
Council of a Unive11ity the High Court should ordinarily be reluctaat to 
issue a writ of cer1iorari whetre it is plain that a regulation is capable of 
two coruitructions and it would generally not be expedient to re.verse a 
dcci~ion of the educational authorities on the! ground that the construction 
place<i by the said authorities on the 'relevant re,gulations appears to the 
High Court less reasonable than the alternative construction \Vhich it is 
pleased to accept. [985 B-F] 
C1v1L APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 743 of 
1965. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
May 14, 1965 of the Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction 
Case No. 345 of 1965. 
C. K. Daphtary, Attorney-General, R. N. Sinha and S. P. 
Varma, for the appellants. 
Basudev Prasad, K. Rajendra Chaudhri, and K. R. Chaudhuri, 
f
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.