Educational Institutions Cannot Debar Students for Medical Absence if Manuals Provide for Attendance Condonation

The Petitioner, a BBM (Hons) student at XIM University, was debarred from appearing in the End-Semester Examination-II for the subject ‘Introduction to OB & HR’ due to an attendance shortage of 64.41%.

During the semester (Dec 2025 – April 2026), the Petitioner suffered a back injury and a respiratory infection, submitting medical leave applications that were marked as ‘Absent Medical’ in university records.

After failed representations to the University and the Human Rights Commissions, the Petitioner approached the High Court seeking to quash the debarment and requesting a "make-up examination".

The University contended that the Student Manual of Policies (Manual) mandates 75% attendance and that make-up examinations are only for Post-Graduate students, requiring the Petitioner to take a supplementary exam with the junior batch the following year.

1. Whether the debarment of the Petitioner was legally sustainable under the provisions of the Student Manual of Policies given his medical intimation.

2. Whether the facility of a "make-up examination" can be extended to an Under-Graduate student based on University communications.

The court primarily applied the University’s Student Manual of Policies 2025-2026, specifically Clause 10.5 (exemption for illness), Clause 12.1 and 12.3 (procedure for leave of absence), and Clause 10.4 (debarment for absence without prior permission/intimation).

It further relied on the Disclaimer in the Manual, which grants the University the power to modify policies.

The court followed the legal principle from All India Students Federation v. State of Bihar, which holds that attendance regulations should not be applied punitively when the absence is not deliberate or in defiance of authority.

The Court found that the Petitioner’s absence was due to genuine medical exigencies (9 classes), which had been duly intimated and acknowledged by the University as ‘Absent Medical’.

Therefore, Clause 10.4, which permits debarment only for absence without prior intimation/permission, was inapplicable.

The Court calculated that if the medical absence were condoned, the Petitioner’s attendance would rise to 79%, exceeding the 75% threshold.

Regarding the "make-up examination," while the Manual initially limited it to PG students, the Court observed that an official e-mail dated 16.03.2026, approved by the Vice Chancellor, had extended this facility to all UG programs.

The Court rejected the University's attempt to disown its own communication, holding that the "Disclaimer" in the Manual allowed such policy additions.

The Court quashed the debarment notice dated 07.04.2026 and directed the University to conduct a make-up examination for the Petitioner in the subject ‘Introduction to OB and HR’ within two weeks, without forcing him to appear in the supplementary examination with the junior batch.