Medical certificate can justify attendance condonation despite late filing, Calcutta High Court rules in law student’s case

The petitioner, a B.Com. LL.B. student, was debarred from the sixth-semester examinations after recording 63.76% attendance, below the 65% threshold for consideration of condonation under the University’s regulations.

She relied on illness, including chickenpox for which she was advised isolation, gynaecological problems, and the death of her father.

The University refused condonation, citing her attendance level and her failure to submit the required leave application and medical certificate within the prescribed time.

During the writ proceedings, the petitioner also challenged the University’s attendance calculations and alleged inconsistent treatment of other students; the Court directed production of relevant records.

While the petition was pending, she was permitted to sit examinations and proceed to later semesters, but the results remained unpublished.

Whether the University acted lawfully in refusing to consider or grant condonation of the petitioner’s attendance shortage on the grounds of illness and the circumstances following her father’s death.

Whether the University’s attendance regulations were inherently defective or had been applied inconsistently so as to prejudice the petitioner.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to publication of the results for the sixth and subsequent semesters in which she had participated.

The University’s Regulations required 75% aggregate attendance, while Regulation 3.4.2 permitted students within the specified attendance range—including a 65% lower limit for B.Com. LL.B.—to seek condonation for illness or approved extra-curricular activities, subject to stated conditions; Regulation 3.4.3 provided for debarment where the attendance requirement was not met without condonation.

The Court recognised the importance of enforcing attendance requirements in legal education, relying on University of Calcutta & Ors. v. Amit Jalan for the need to observe prescribed attendance standards.

However, the Court also held that attendance rules must be applied consistently with fairness: a delay in submitting an illness-related application or medical certificate should not, by itself, be fatal where a genuine medical certificate is furnished.

The Court further recognised that it may intervene under its constitutional jurisdiction where the University’s handling of attendance prejudices a student’s rights or involves an overall violation of natural justice.

The Court affirmed that attendance requirements serve an important educational purpose and that the University’s regulations were not inherently defective.

It nevertheless distinguished illness from participation in extra-curricular activities, reasoning that a medical certificate from an independent medical professional may establish genuine illness and that procedural delay in producing it should not automatically defeat a condonation request.

The petitioner had been diagnosed with chickenpox and advised to isolate, and she also relied on medical documents concerning gynaecological problems; the Court found that the University had erred by not allowing attendance adjustment on those serious medical grounds.

It also rejected the University’s description of the father’s death as merely “historical,” finding that the bereavement and its financial consequences had to be considered in context.

Although the Court noted the apparent exception in another student’s case, it treated that decision as a one-off matter and did not use it to establish general inconsistency.

It accordingly found sufficient grounds to grant relief to the petitioner on her own circumstances.

It directed that the petitioner not be debarred from clearing the sixth semester and moving to the next semester for inadequate attendance; that the withheld results for the sixth and/or subsequent semesters be published promptly, with any unevaluated examination papers evaluated; and that, upon completion of the course, the University issue the relevant certificates, mark sheets, and other documents without delay.

The University’s subsequent request for a stay was rejected.