W.P.(C) No.12973 of 2026 Page 1 of 23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.12973 of 2026

(An application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution

of India)

Omm Patnaik

… Petitioner

- versus-

State of Odisha and others … Opposite Parties

Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:

For Petitioner : Mr.S. P. Mishra,

Sr. Advocate with

Miss. S Rout, Advocate

-versus-

For Opp.Parties

: Mr. T. K. Dash, A.G.A.

Mr. B. Routray,

Sr. Advocate with

Mr. S. Routray, Advocate

(For O.P. Nos.3, 4 and 5)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

Date of Hearing: 24.6.2026: Date of Judgment:29.6.2026

W.P.(C) No.12973 of 2026 Page 2 of 23

Sashikanta Mishra,J. The petitioner, a student of BBM (Hons) in

XIM University, Bhubaneswar, being debarred from

appearing in the End-Semester Examination-II for the

first year in the subject ‘Introduction to OB & HR’

because of shortage of attendance has filed this Writ

Petition seeking the following relief;

“It is therefore prayed that your Lordships may be

graciously pleased to admit the writ application, call

for the records, issue Rule NISI calling upon the

opposite parties, to show-cause as to why

a) the Debarment Notice/Order dated 07.04.2026

issued by Opposite Party No.3 (vide Annexure-7)

insofar as it debarred the Petitioner from appearing in

the End-Term Examination-Il for the subject

"Introduction to OB & HR" shall not be set-

aside/quashed:

b) the Opposite Parties-Authorities shall not be directed

to permit the Petitioner to appear in the said End-Term

Examination-II in the subject "Introduction to OB & HR

through the Make-up Examination for Program (vide

Annexure-11) and to declare his result accordingly

And in the event, the opposite parties fail to show-

cause or show insufficient cause, the said Rule be

made absolute and

a) the Debarment Notice/Order dated 07.04.2026

issued by Opposite Party No. 3 (vide Annexure-7)

insofar as it debarred the Petitioner from appearing in

the End-Term Examination-II for the subject

"Introduction to OB & HR shall be set-aside/quashed,

b) the Opposite Parties-Authorities shall be directed to

permit the Petitioner to appear in the said End-Term

Examination-II in the subject "Introduction to OB & HR

W.P.(C) No.12973 of 2026 Page 3 of 23

through the Make-up Examination for All UG Program

(vide Annexure-11) and to declare his result

accordingly.

And may further be pleased to pass any other writ(s),

order(s), direction(s) and relief(s) as deemed fit and

proper

And for this act of kindness the petitioner shall as in

duty bound ever pray.”

2. Be it noted that originally, by order dated

05.5.2026, the Writ Petition was disposed of permitting

the Petitioner to appear in the supplementary

examination to be held either from 1

st July, 2026 or from

1

st February, 2027. However, the petitioner sought

review of the said order in RVWPET No.117/2026. After

hearing the parties, this Court, by order dated 24.6.2026

allowed the application for review by recalling the order

dated 5.5.2026 passed in this Writ Petition. This is how

the Writ Petition came to be heard again on merits.

FACTS:

3. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts of the case

are as follows;

The petitioner took admission in the Four-Year Full-

Time Bachelor’s Degree Programme namely, BBM (Hons.)

W.P.(C) No.12973 of 2026 Page 4 of 23

for the academic Session 2025-2029 in the School of

Commerce, XIM University, Bhubaneswar. The petitioner

successfully completed the First Semester Examination

from 22.7.2025 to 08.12.2025. During the Second

Semester, which commenced from 09.12.2025 and

continued till 16.4.2026, the petitioner fell ill and

sustained back injury due to accidental fall from the

stairs. As such, he was placed under complete medical

care with restrictions imposed on his daily activities.

Under such circumstances, the petitioner submitted a

leave application to the University on 18.12.2025 along

with medical prescriptions and documents seeking

medical leave. He thus remained absent from 16.12.2025

to 02.1.2026 during which period a total of 6 classes

were conducted. The petitioner’s absence in the classes

was marked as ‘Absent Medical’. Again on 30.3.2026, he

was diagnosed with acute respiratory tract infection

accompanied with high fever and other complications,

which continued till 04.4.2026. As such, he was

constrained to submit a leave application on 01.4.2026.

Despite such application seeking leave on medical

W.P.(C) No.12973 of 2026 Page 5 of 23

grounds, the University authorities issued the impugned

order dtd.7.4.2026 debarring him from appearing in the

End-Semester Examination in the subject ‘Introduction

to OB and HR’ on the ground that his attendance was

64.41%. The petitioner attempted to meet the authorities

on several occasions to justify his absence but to no

avail. He therefore, approached the Odisha Human

Rights Commission in Case No.1312/2026. By order

dated 10.4.2026, the Commission refused to interfere in

the matter but left it open to the University to take a

decision. Despite such order, the authorities did not take

any action for which the petitioner approached the

National Human Rights Commission by filing a complaint

registered as Case No.301/18/28/2026. The National

Commission by order dated 16.4.2026 directed the

authorities to permit the petitioner to appear in the

examination scheduled to be held on the same day on

humanitarian grounds and also called upon them to

submit a compliance report. Though the petitioner

brought the order of the National Commission to the

notice of the authorities, they did not comply with the

W.P.(C) No.12973 of 2026 Page 6 of 23

same for which the petitioner was constrained to file the

present writ Petition.

4. According to the petitioner, the classes were held in

a compressed and accelerated manner between

31.3.2026 and 04.4.2026 whereby, 9 classes were held in

5 days. During such time, the petitioner’s medical

condition did not allow him to attend the classes which

he duly brought to the notice of the authorities. It is

further contended that as per the provisions of the

Student Manual of Policies 2025-2026 (for short, the

Manual) of the University, the petitioner’s absence on

medical grounds can be condoned by permitting him to

appear in a make-up examination in the subject in

question. According to the petitioner, the relevant

provisions of the Manual have not been considered in the

proper perspective by the University authorities.

5. The case of the University, on the other hand, is

that there is no provision in the Manual to conduct a

make-up examination for a student who has been

debarred in one subject for lack of attendance. It is stated

that as per the relevant provisions a student is required

W.P.(C) No.12973 of 2026 Page 7 of 23

to attend minimum 75% of classes in all individual

courses failing which he shall not be allowed to appear in

the End-Semester Examination. The petitioner’s

attendance was 64.41% in the subject ‘Introduction to

OB and HR’. Therefore, he was rightly debarred in that

subject and duly intimated on 07.4.2026. It is further

stated that as per the provisions, in case of grave

personal tragedy or hospitalization, a student can

approach the Controller of Examinations for conduct of

supplementary examination with approval of the Dean of

the School. Said supplementary examination will be

taken in the next available semester in the same year.

However, if the total attendance falls below 75% or the

student has been debarred from appearing in an End-

Term Examination, he shall have to take the

supplementary examination with the junior batch in the

next year. There is no provision in the Manual as well as

in the UGC Regulation to conduct specific examination

for students debarred in the Mid-Term Examination or

End-Term Examination. Debarment in such Semester

requires giving of the entire course in the supplementary

W.P.(C) No.12973 of 2026 Page 8 of 23

examination. A student cannot choose a particular

component to appear in the supplementary examination.

64 batchmates of the petitioner being faced with similar

situation have agreed to appear in the supplementary

examination scheduled to commence from 01.7.2026.

The petitioner, instead of appearing in the said

examination seeks conduct of a make-up examination for

him which is not permissible. The petitioner while taking

admission had undertaken to maintain 75% attendance

and that he would be debarred in case it falls below the

said percentage. The University is ready to permit the

petitioner to appear in the supplementary examination.

SUMISSIONS:

6. Heard Mr. S. P. Mishra, learned Senior counsel with

Miss S. Rout, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. T. K.

Dash, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State

and Mr. B. Routray, learned Senior counsel with Mr. S.

Routray for the University (Opp. Party Nos.3, 4 and 5).

7. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior counsel would argue

that the University authorities have taken an

unnecessarily rigid stance in respect of a student, who

W.P.(C) No.12973 of 2026 Page 9 of 23

was forced to remain absent on some dates owing to

medical exigencies. His case ought to have been

considered on a separate footing considering the fact that

his attendance in all other subjects was more than the

required percentage. It is further submitted by Mr.

Mishra that the authorities have misconstrued/mis-

applied the relevant provisions of the Manual. In this

context, Mr. Mishra has referred to Clauses 10.5, 12.1

and 12.3 of the said Manual. He also refers to the order

of the Controller of Examinations issued with approval of

the Vice Chancellor of the University on 16.03.2026

providing for make-up examination for all U.G.

programmes. According to Mr. Mishra, this provision

squarely applies to a student, who has missed the Mid-

Semester or an End-Semester Examination due to

absence with prior permission from the Dean. Since the

petitioner being medically indisposed had submitted

application seeking leave and the same was duly reflected

in the record of attendance, it is implied that such

absence was with prior intimation to the Dean. It is not a

case of the petitioner remaining willfully absent but one

W.P.(C) No.12973 of 2026 Page 10 of 23

where he was forced by circumstances beyond his

control. Mr. Mishra also argues that the very manner of

holding 9 classes in 5 days shows that the University

authorities were themselves guilty of non-adherence to

the teaching schedule. If the petitioner’s absence in those

9 classes is condoned, his percentage would go beyond

the required 75%. Under such circumstances, forcing the

petitioner to forgo one full year in order to appear in the

supplementary examination in the following year with his

juniors would seriously prejudice his career. To buttress

his contentions, Mr. Mishra has cited a judgment of a

Division of the High Court of Patna in the case of All

India Students Federation through Abhishek Anand,

Member, Bihar State Council vs. State of Bihar and

others,

1 which we shall refer to at the appropriate stage

later.

8. Mr. T. K. Dash, learned Addl. Government Advocate

would submit that the State has no role to play in the

matter as the University has its own Manual to follow.

Nevertheless, he fairly submits that this being a case of

1

2016 SCC Online Pat 7383

W.P.(C) No.12973 of 2026 Page 11 of 23

non-attendance of classes by a student on medical

grounds, having the effect of adversely affecting his

career, it is for the University authorities to consider the

matter from such perspective.

9. Learned Senior counsel Mr. Routray would argue

that the University cannot go beyond the provisions of

the Manual issued by it. As per the said provisions, a

student failing to secure the minimum required

attendance without prior permission of the Dean has to

be debarred from appearing in the examination. All

students including the petitioner had submitted

undertaking to such effect at the time of admission and

therefore, cannot claim any special privilege at this stage.

Mr. Routray further argues that admittedly, the petitioner

had attended classes below 75% in the subject in

question. Therefore, as per Clause 10.1 read with Clause

10.7, 11.1, 15 (iii) (2) read with 15 (iii) (4) of the Manual,

the petitioner was rightly debarred. Nevertheless, as per

the provisions of Clause 15 (iii) (2) he can still appear in

the supplementary examination scheduled to commence

from 01.7.2026 for which he has already registered. This

W.P.(C) No.12973 of 2026 Page 12 of 23

examination is being conducted for all the students

having backlogs as well as those who have been

debarred. The petitioner not having complied with the

procedure prescribed for obtaining leave of absence

cannot be given any special treatment. It is further

argued that the make-up examination is available only

for Post-Graduate students. The office order regarding

extension of such facility to Under-Graduate students

has not been acted upon as it is not provided for in the

Manual. Since the Petitioner’s case comes within the

purview of Clause 15(iii) (2) as he was hospitalized and as

his total attendance is below 75%, he shall have to take

the supplementary examination with the junior batch in

the next year. Making a departure will result in setting a

wrong precedent and will also amount to discrimination

in respect of 64 batchmates of the petitioner.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:

10. As already stated, this is a case where the petitioner

did not attend as many as 9 classes on the ground of his

ill-health. This is not disputed by the University

authorities. In fact, the reason for his absence has been

W.P.(C) No.12973 of 2026 Page 13 of 23

duly acknowledged in the record of attendance for the

relevant dates by mentioning ‘Absent Medical’. This

implies that the petitioner’s assertion that he had sought

leave of absence on medical grounds by duly intimating

the authorities is correct. It is also not disputed that out

of a total 59 classes held in the subject ‘Introduction to

OB and HR’ the petitioner remained absent on medical

grounds on 9 dates. His total attendance is said to be 38

classes out of 59. So, if his absence in 9 classes is

condoned, the total attendance would come to 38+9=47.

While 38 out of 59 amounts to 64.41%, 47 out of 59

would amount to 79%.

11. Having observed as above, we may now refer to the

Manual which, interestingly, both parties have heavily

relied upon in support of their rival contentions. As it

appears, the Manual issued w.e.f. June, 2025 is in two

parts - Post Graduate Programme and Under Graduate

Programme. Clause 10 pertains to ‘Attendance’. Clause

10.5 being relevant is extracted below;

“10.5. Exemption from attending classes is not

permissible for reasons other than personal physical

W.P.(C) No.12973 of 2026 Page 14 of 23

illness, grave personal tragedy and university official

work The provision of 25% absence is only to

accommodate these reasons only.”

12. Leave of absence is governed under Clause-12, 12.1

and 12.3 being relevant are reproduced below;

“12. LEAVE OF ABSENCE

12.1. For any leave as mentioned in section 10.5, the

student shall have to seek and obtain prior permission

from the Dean. Such leave of absence may be granted

by the Dean on application along with documentary

evidences. Any other types of leaves may be rejected

by the Dean upon his sole discretion

12.3. Students missing classes due to health reasons

are required to produce valid medical certificate along

with doctor's prescription and original GST bill for the

medicines purchased, GST bills for any medical tests

and a Medical Certificate of Fitness while joining

back.”

13. From a conjoint reading of these provisions, it

would be clear that ordinarily, exemption from attending

classes is not permissible save for reasons of physical

illness, personal tragedy, etc. to the extent of 25%. It is

also provided that leave of absence has to be sought and

prior permission obtained. In the instant case, as

already stated, the fact that the petitioner sought for

leave of absence and also appears to have been granted

leave is substantiated by necessary endorsement in the

record of attendance referred above.

W.P.(C) No.12973 of 2026 Page 15 of 23

14. The question is, what would be the remedy available

to a student in such case. The answer is to be found in

Clause 15(iii). Clause 15 (iii) (2) provides for conduct of

supplementary examination in case of grave personal

tragedy or hospitalization of a student. Thus, in such a

situation the student has to take supplementary

examination. In the instant case, the petitioner was

debarred from appearing in the examination. Debarment

of the student is permissible and prescribed under

Clause 10.4 of the Manual, which is reproduced below;

“Absence without prior permission/intimation for leave

from the Dean is considered to be a serious breach of

discipline, and the student is liable for appropriate

disciplinary action, besides reduction in grade points

and or debarment from the end semester

examination.”

15. We have already held that the petitioner had duly

intimated the authorities of his medical condition and

sought leave for such purpose. A copy of the leave

application is enclosed as Annexure-6 to the Writ

Petition. It is therefore, not a case of absence of the

Petitioner without prior permission/intimation for leave

from the Dean. The impugned letter of debarment

W.P.(C) No.12973 of 2026 Page 16 of 23

dtd.07.4.2026 also does not spell out any reason

whatsoever for debarment except for mentioning his

percentage of attendance in the subject in question as

64.41%. Strictly applying the provisions of the Manual,

we find no justified reason for debarment of the

petitioner. To such extent therefore, the impugned order

of debarment cannot be sustained.

16. While the ordinary remedy available would be as

provided under Clause 15(iii) (2) yet, it has been

emphatically argued on behalf of the Petitioner that the

authorities are empowered to hold a make-up

examination for the petitioner also. A holistic reading of

the Manual reveals that make-up examination is

available only for P.G. courses. Clause 4.8.1 is the

relevant provision and is reproduced below;

“If a student has missed a mid-term or an end-term

examination due to absence with prior permission

from the Dean, s/he should report his/her presence to

the Dean and Controller of Examinations within one

week of returning to the campus for the purpose of

make-up examination. Necessary arrangements shall

be made by the CoE Office to conduct a make-up

examination within two weeks of her/his re- joining.”

W.P.(C) No.12973 of 2026 Page 17 of 23

17. There is no specific provision akin to Clause 4.8.1

for Under Graduate Programme. But then, by an order

issued from the office of the Controller of Examinations of

the University and communicated to the students by

e-mail on 16.3.2026, the facility of make-up examination

was also extended to all U.G. Programmes. Said e-mail

categorially mentioned that the proposal was approved by

the Vice Chancellor. It has been argued on behalf of the

University that the aforesaid order has not been acted

upon being contrary to the Manual. We are unable to

accept such argument firstly, for the reason that no

material is placed before us to substantiate such

contention. Secondly, in view of the Disclaimer provided

to the Scope and Applicability of the Manual, as

reproduced below, there can be no doubt that the

University has the power to make changes in and

addition to the Policies.

“ Disclaimer

The statements made in this Student Manual of

Policies (MoP) and all other information contained

herein are believed to be correct at the time of

publication. However, XIM University, reserves the

sole right to make changes in and additions to the

policies, regulations, conditions governing student

conduct, degree requirements, fees, or any other

W.P.(C) No.12973 of 2026 Page 18 of 23

information or statements in this Manual at any time

as deemed necessary.

The University shall not be held responsible for any

hardship, expense or inconvenience caused to

students or any other individuals due to such

changes, additions, omissions, or errors regardless of

the manner in which they occur.”

[Emphasis added]

The order extending the facility of make-up

examination to U.G. Programmes has to be understood in

this context. Thirdly, having itself issued the order it is

not open to the University to turn around and

subsequently say that the same has no effect being

contrary to the Manual.

18. Had such facility not been extended to the U.G.

Programmes, the matter would have been different and

the only remedy for an affected student would have been

to take Supplementary Examination as provided under

Clause 15(iii)(2) of the Manual. Since the additional

facility of make-up examination is available, there is no

reason why the same shall not be extended in an

appropriate case. From what has been narrated above,

we are convinced that the present case is an appropriate

case for application of the order.

W.P.(C) No.12973 of 2026 Page 19 of 23

19. We may now, refer to the judgments cited at the bar.

In the case of Regional Engineering College,

Hamimpur and others vs. Ashutosh Pandey

2

, (cited by

Mr. Routray) the student in question had absented

himself from classes and did not apply for condonation.

Despite being informed of the shortfall, he submitted

application for condonation after lapse of three months.

The Principal refused to grant condonation as the

absence was in excess of the discretionary percentage of

10%. The facts of the present case are clearly

distinguishable from the cited case inasmuch as the

petitioner herein not only applied for grant of leave at the

appropriate time but also the period of his absence was

well within the permissible limit of 25%. The cited case

has therefore, no application.

20. In the case of Ashok Kumar Thakur Vs.

University of Himachal Pradesh and others

3, (cited by

Mr. Routray) the Supreme Court found that on the facts

of that case, it was beyond the jurisdiction or competence

2

2002 (9) SCC 720

3

1973 (2) SCC 298

W.P.(C) No.12973 of 2026 Page 20 of 23

of the Principal to condone the deficiencies of the student

in the matter of attendance of Lecturers. As such, it

refused to grant the relief claimed by the petitioner. Such

is not the case at hand inasmuch as the University, as

already discussed, has ample power to condone the

absence of a student from Classes in case of unforeseen

circumstances like ill-health etc.

21. In the case of All India Students Federation

(Supra) (cited by Mr. Mishra) the regulations in question

permitted the authorities to condone the shortfall in

attendance in case of serious illness or other unavoidable

circumstances. It was a case where the Principal and Vice

Chancellor did not exercise the discretion vested on them

by the regulations. Holding that the regulation is punitive

in nature with adverse civil consequences, the Court held

that the authorities are duty bound to consider whether

the lack of attendance was deliberate and was in

conscious disregard of the norms of Policy. The following

observations of the Court are noteworthy;

“31- Thus, just because the attendance of a student

has fallen below the prescribed attendance of 75%,

W.P.(C) No.12973 of 2026 Page 21 of 23

the penal consequences, as mentioned in Regulation

5, will not automatically follow in the event of a prayer

made by the student citing the grounds for his

absence. The Principal or the Vice Chancellor, as the

case may, are duty bound to consider whether the

lack of attendance was deliberate and was in

conscious disregard of norms of College. In a case,

when the absence from classes was not in defiance of

the Authority or a deliberate conduct on the part of the

student, the discretion to condone the attendance has

to be, ordinarily, exercised in favour of the student in

view of the severe consequences likely to follow if such

discretion is not exercised.

32- A Teacher, let us bear in mind, faces the challenge

of shaping the career of students so that they can

become useful citizens of the Nation and, thus,

contribute towards its development. In view of the

responsibility cast upon the Teacher, whenever

circumstances arises for taking punitive measures

against a student, he has to be very cautious in his

approach, because the punitive measures may ruin

the career of his students. It is in this backdrop that

we propose to deal with this case.”

22. After analyzing the provisions, the facts and law

relating to issue of mandamus in such cases, the Court

ultimately observed as follows:

“58- The present case reveals an extremely sad

approach of educationists. In such an emergent case,

as the one at hand - when every moment is painful to

pass - if the Court delays or hesitates to step in and

issue appropriate directions, the consequences would

be too disastrous inasmuch as it may severely shake

the confidence of the people in the ability of the Courts

to maintain rule of law and do justice. Hence, in view

of the fact that the announcement or publication of the

result of the examinees, who have already appeared

in their respective examination, has been stayed by

this Court, any further delay may cause

immeasurable harm to the candidates, who have

already appeared as examinees in their respective

examinations. We, therefore, direct that the Principal,

Patna Women's College, to condone the attendance of

all those students, who have inadequate attendance

W.P.(C) No.12973 of 2026 Page 22 of 23

to the extent of 70%. We also direct the Vice

Chancellor, Patna University, to condone the

attendance of those students, who have inadequate

attendance up to 60%. All these students be allowed

to appear in their respective examinations within a

period of 15 days from today. The results of the

examination of the students, who have already

appeared in their respective examinations, be

published and declared along with the results of

examinations of those students, whose inadequate

attendances have been directed to be condoned by us.

The entire result shall be declared within the

scheduled date so that the students do not suffer any

further. Upon publication of the results, the Vice-

Chancellor of the Patna University and the Principal,

Patna Women's College, shall lay before this Court a

comprehensive report so as enable this Court to give

such further direction(s) as may be warranted by the

facts and attending circumstances of the present

case.”

In view of the facts attending the present case, we

are in respectful agreement with the above observations.

CONCLUSION:

23. Thus, from a conspectus of the analysis of facts,

law, contentions raised and the discussions made, we are

of the considered view that the order of debarment of the

petitioner was contrary to the provisions of the Manual

and otherwise unjustified. We are also of the view that

the benefit of make-up examination can be extended to

the Petitioner. Accordingly, we allow the Writ Petition.

The impugned order of debarment dated 7.4.2026 is

hereby quashed. The University authorities are directed

W.P.(C) No.12973 of 2026 Page 23 of 23

to conduct a make-up examination for the petitioner in

the subject ‘Introduction of OB and HR’ as early as

possible, preferably within a period of two weeks from

today without insisting upon him to appear in the

forthcoming supplementary examination.

............................................

Sashikanta Mishra, J.

B. P. Routrary, J. I agree.

....................................

B. P. Routrary, J.

Ashok Kumar Behera