The Calcutta High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking condonation of attendance for a B.Com LLB student whose attendance fell below the 65% threshold required for consideration under university regulations, emphasizing that courts cannot direct authorities to act beyond statutory provisions.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
Tamanna Ali, a B.Com LLB (Hons.) student of St. Xavier's University, Kolkata, filed a writ petition challenging the university's refusal to condone her attendance shortage for the 4th semester, which resulted in her being debarred from appearing in examinations and withholding of her results for subsequent semesters.
Key Facts
- The petitioner took admission in the B.Com LLB (Hons.) course (Academic Year 2022-23) on 12.07.2022, signing a declaration form to maintain minimum 75% aggregate attendance per Regulation 3.4.1 of University Regulations
- The 4th semester classes commenced on 15.01.2024 and ended on 06.05.2024, with a total of 342 classes delivered
- The petitioner attended only 211 classes, resulting in 61.70% attendance based on actual classes attended
- The petitioner claimed participation in extra-curricular activities: Tug of War, Kabaddi practice, football volunteering, Xavrang-related activities, and as "Thali Girl" at the Karunamoyee Book Fair inaugurated by the Hon'ble Chief Minister of West Bengal
- The petitioner claimed illness in February 2024 due to fatty liver, submitting medical prescriptions dated 15.02.2024 and 20.02.2024 along with test reports dated 19.02.2024
- The university granted condonation for 5 classes missed on 19.01.2024 for the Xaviesta event, adjusting the petitioner's attendance to 62.61%
- Under Regulation 3.4.2, students with attendance between 60% (65% for B.A.-LLB & B.Com-LLB) and 74% may seek approval for condonation on grounds of illness or extra-curricular activities
- The petitioner's attendance of 62.61% was below the 65% threshold applicable to B.Com-LLB students, placing her outside the zone of consideration for condonation
- The petitioner filed the writ petition on 28.05.2024, seeking condonation of absence for illness (February 2024) and extra-curricular activities (January-March 2024)
- The petitioner appeared in 4th, 5th, and 6th semester examinations pursuant to the court's order dated 14.06.2024, but results were withheld due to the pendency of the matter
Procedural History
- 28.05.2024: Writ Petition (WPA No. 15084 of 2024) filed before the High Court
- 30.05.2024: Matter heard before vacation bench (Hon'ble Justice Bibhas Ranjan De), who directed placement before regular bench finding no urgency
- 13.06.2024: Petitioner filed supplementary affidavit adducing documents in support of leave claim
- 14.06.2024: Matter moved to regular bench; Hon'ble Court passed order directing: (i) Petitioner allowed to take admission in 5th semester by depositing fees (ii) Petitioner allowed to take admission in 6th semester without depositing fees (iii) Petitioner's attendance recorded in separate sheet for 5th & 6th semesters
- 01.09.2025: Petitioner filed written note of arguments before the court
- Heard on several dates: Matter heard on multiple dates during pendency
- 29.09.2026: Judgment delivered by Hon'ble Justice Jay Sengupta
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Condonation of attendance on account of illness suffered in February 2024
- Condonation of attendance for participation in extra-curricular activities from January 15, 2024 to March 1, 2024
- Permission to sit for 4th semester examinations either before commencement of 5th semester or during 6th semester (May 2025)
- Direction to publish withheld results of 4th, 5th, and 6th semester examinations
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the petitioner, whose attendance was recorded at 62.61% (below the 65% threshold prescribed for B.Com-LLB students under Regulation 3.4.2 of the University Regulations), could be granted condonation of absence for illness and extra-curricular activities when the university regulations explicitly set a minimum attendance threshold for invoking discretionary powers.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner contended that she participated in university-sanctioned extra-curricular activities on behalf of the institution and suffered genuine illness in February 2024, yet was denied condonation despite submitting medical documents. She argued that the university violated its own regulations by failing to consider her participation in activities such as Tug of War, Kabaddi practice, football volunteering, and her role as "Thali Girl" at the Karunamoyee Book Fair. The petitioner asserted that she had followed all required procedures but was subjected to arbitrary and mala fide action by the university authorities, which violated her constitutional rights as a student.
For the Respondent
The university authorities argued that Regulation 3.4.2 clearly stipulates that students must have attendance between 60% (65% for B.A.-LLB & B.Com-LLB) and 74% to be eligible for seeking condonation approval. Since the petitioner's attendance was 62.61% (below the 65% threshold for B.Com-LLB students), she did not meet the minimum requirement to even invoke the university's discretionary powers under the regulation. They emphasized that the petitioner failed to submit her leave application within three days of absence and medical certificates within fifteen days of rejoining classes as mandated by Regulation 3.4.2(a). The university further stated that, except for the five classes missed on 19.01.2024 for which condonation had already been granted, the petitioner's claimed absences for other extra-curricular activities were not substantiated by university records. They relied on precedents holding that courts cannot substitute their view for administrative decisions in attendance matters and that allegations of mala fide require factual proof, which was absent in this case.
The Court's Analysis
The court began by noting that the university, as a creature of statute, must operate within the circumference of its statutory provisions and cannot exercise powers de hors the regulations framed under the St. Xavier's University, Kolkata Act, 2016. The court examined Regulation 3.4.2 in detail, which governs condonation of attendance for students with attendance between 60% (65% for B.A.-LLB & B.Com-LLB) and 74%.
The court observed: "The said Clause 3.4.2 does not confer upon the appellant, the power to condone the shortfall below 60 percent of the attendance and, therefore, the direction of the Single Bench to condone the same despite the attendance being short of 60 percent is contrary to the aforesaid statutory provisions and, therefore, cannot be sustained."
For B.Com-LLB students, the lower limit for condonation consideration is explicitly set at 65%. The petitioner's attendance of 62.61% fell below this threshold, placing her outside the zone where the university's discretionary powers could be invoked. The court stressed that "the university cannot exercise the power de hors the same" and that directing condonation below the statutory threshold "would be regarded as an arbitrary and in excess of the power so conferred."
Regarding the petitioner's claims of illness and extra-curricular participation, the court held that even if condonation were considered, the petitioner failed to comply with procedural requirements under Regulation 3.4.2(a): she did not submit her leave application within three days of absence nor her medical certificates within fifteen days of rejoining classes. The court noted that mere submission of leave application itself does not ensure condonation, and the absence of timely compliance defeated her claim.
On allegations of mala fide, the court cited Dhampur Sugar v State of Uttarakhand (2007) 8 SCC 448, para 83, stating that "the burden of proving mala fide is on the person levelling such allegations and the burden is very heavy" and must be demonstrated by facts. The petitioner's vague assertions without specific averments or requisite materials were insufficient to sustain a mala fide charge.
The court further emphasized that Article 226 writ jurisdiction cannot be used for a "roving and fishing enquiry" and that a petition succeeds only if it makes out a case, referencing A Hamsaveni v State of TN (1994) 6 SCC 98 and Sadananda Halo v Momtaz Ali Sheikh (2008) 4 SCC 619.
The Verdict
The petitioner's writ petition was dismissed. The court directed that: (i) The petitioner shall again attend the classes for the semester for which she had inadequate attendance and fulfil the attendance requirement; (ii) Immediately thereafter, all her examination results for the said and/or the following semesters, which had been kept unpublished, shall be published; (iii) For such purpose, if the examination papers have not been evaluated till now, shall be kept evaluated in the mean time; (iv) No stigma shall be attached or further prejudice shall be caused to the student for having to participate in the said semester classes afresh; (v) At the completion of the course as contemplated above, the petitioner shall receive all certificate/s, mark sheets/s and other relevant documents, if any, without further delay.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Threshold Requirement is Jurisdictional
The judgment establishes that minimum attendance thresholds under institutional regulations operate as jurisdictional bars to condonation claims. For B.Com-LLB students at St. Xavier's University, attendance below 65% cannot be considered for condonation under Regulation 3.4.2, regardless of the grounds claimed (illness or extra-curricular activities). Institutions cannot exercise discretionary powers below statutorily prescribed limits, and courts will not interfere with such clear threshold requirements.
Strict Procedural Compliance is Non-Negotiable
Even where attendance falls within the condonation zone, strict adherence to procedural timelines is mandatory. Under Regulation 3.4.2(a), leave applications must reach the Dean's office within three days of absence, and medical certificates must be submitted within fifteen days of rejoining classes. Failure to comply with these timelines, as seen in the petitioner's delayed submission of medical documents via email dated 12.05.2024, defeats condonation claims irrespective of the genuineness of the illness or participation.
Burden of Proof for Mala Fide Lies Squarely on Allegator
Allegations of mala fide in attendance matters require concrete factual demonstration, not mere assertions. The petitioner must supply full particulars, including specific documents and timelines, to substantiate claims of arbitrary or discriminatory action. Vague averments or bald statements without supporting evidence will not sustain a mala fide charge, placing a heavy evidentiary burden on the student challenging administrative decisions.
