CHENNAI: Permitting students to write arrears is only a concession given by university on humanitarian grounds. When the student is not able to clear the arrears, except on genuine grounds, the university should not issue notifications granting the concession, as it will always create unrest among the students and the university will always end litigating over the matters in courts instead of taking classes for the students, the Madras High Court has observed.
Justice S Vaidyanathan made the observation last month while dismissing a writ petition from G Meganathan, who sought to quash an order, dated January 3 last, of the Anna University and consequently to issue a direction to the university to permit him to appear for three exams in August.
Though it is a fit case for imposing a cost of `50,000, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner wants to avail himself of the opportunity of appearing for the exam, this court is not imposing the cost, the judge added.
The notifications, issued by the university on several occasions permitting the students, who were admitted in 2000, to clear the arrears, were themselves wrong, the judge said. When the petitioner had already been given chances and if he was given yet another chance now, it would amount to discrimination and others would also seek the concession.
The concession/benefit cannot be demanded as a matter of right by a student while clearing arrears for finishing the course itself. “When this court expresses disagreement with regard to the contention of the petitioner, the petitioner stated that he had already preferred an appeal and the appeal was pending against the impugned order, before the appellate authority concerned.
This court is not willing to relegate the matter to the appellate authority on two grounds, namely, (i) when the facts are not in dispute, the alternative remedy need not be a bar and this court can entertain the writ petition, and (ii) when the petitioner approaches the court, stating that the alternative remedy is a bar at one time and contends that the alternative remedy is not a bar on another occasion, to suit his convenience.
As the facts are not in dispute, the petitioner will not have a locus standi to demand as a matter of right that he be permitted to take up the arrears, the judge added and dismissed the petition.