Andhra HC slams GMRIT for denying exam access to student over attendance
VIJAYAWADA: The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Wednesday criticised the GMR Institute of Technology (GMRIT) for barring a BTech student from writing his fourth-semester exams due to low attendance, despite the student's medical condition.
The petitioner, BVK Koushik of Madhuranagari, Srikakulam district, is a BTech (AI & Data Science) student at GMRIT. He missed classes due to health issues and submitted valid medical certificates to the college. However, GMRIT denied him permission to appear for the third-semester exams, citing less than 75 per cent attendance.
Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad, who heard the petition, objected to the college's refusal to release Koushik's third-semester results. The judge termed GMRIT's 10 per cent attendance relaxation cap 'arbitrary and one-sided,' questioning its constitutional validity. The Hight Court observed that illness is beyond human control and rigid attendance norms cannot be imposed in such cases.
'These rules are framed by a private institution and not by a government authority,' the Court noted. The Hight Court directed GMRIT, the State Education Department, the Vice-Chancellor, and Controller of Examinations of JNTU to allow the student to continue and complete his B.Tech course without further hindrance.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
21 hours ago
- Time of India
Bombay high court orders full reimbursement for central govt pensioner denied heart transplant expenses incurred at private hospital
Mumbai: In what it said was a peculiar case of a dispute arising over a reimbursement claim by a central govt employee for a "heart transplant" conducted at a private hospital, the Bombay high court on Friday held that the affected man, a pensioner, was entitled to decide on a private hospital for the procedure in the absence of timely availability of such facilities in all the empanelled hospitals under the govt health scheme for employees. The high court said he was entitled to full reimbursement of his "undisputed expenditure". It said that to make the man suffer for the refund was a glaring travesty of justice and violation of his fundamental rights. Anirudh Nansi, who took voluntary retirement in March 2008 as a central govt employee, is a Mumbai resident and petitioned the high court in 2022 over his December 2020 transplant. He was an assistant commissioner in the Central Excise and Customs, Pune. The high court held that the money is to be paid in four weeks to the former employee. It held that the rejection by the Centre was "not only violative of the fundamental rights but strikes at the very root, purpose, and essence of these basic human rights as guaranteed by the constitutional guarantee of right to life under Article 21". A division bench of Justice Girish Kulkarni and Jistice Advait Sethna, tn the judgement pronouncement, held that the central govt was under an obligatory position to grant reimbursement on a case-by-case basis, with no straitjacket formula to fix reimbursement rates. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Esta nueva alarma con cámara es casi regalada en Castelar (ver precio) Verisure Undo The judges said a heart transplant was "certainly serious and emergent", hence, the former employee's case deserved to be treated with humane sensitivity and not mechanically in a "narrow pedantic" view. Any employee, merely because he retired, ought not to be differently treated when it comes to genuine and realistic need, held the high court. A high-powered committee (HPC) denying the pensioner full reimbursement on the grounds that the central scheme permitted rates are required to be followed, "is not the correct and a legal stand of the (Centre)", the high court noted. It said it also disagreed with the HPC's reasoning to deny a full refund even under the Centre's relaxation of guidelines for special emergent cases, stating that "heart transplantation was a planned surgery and not an emergency". The high court said that under the Centre's relaxation rules, it failed to understand how a heart transplant is not considered "extraordinary", emergent and inevitable surgery, "as a heart transplant is required only when the heart is failing, the consequences of which are just to be imagined". Even if there were no relaxation guidelines, in deserving cases, the HPC should exercise its discretion to award full medical reimbursement, held the high court. Through senior advocate Prakash Shah and advocate Anil Balani, Nansi sought reimbursement, saying he was being denied it. He sought reimbursement of Rs 22 lakh with 9% yearly interest. His claim was denied in April 2022 by the Centre. The petitioner was suffering from cardiomyopathy since 2009. In Oct 2019, his condition deteriorated, and he was advised to have a transplant. He said a private empanelled super-specialty hospital in Mumbai at the time was not performing heart transplants, hence he got his done at another one in Mumbai on Dec 29, 2020. He cited his then "grave and critical nature… and the lack of any CGHS empanelled hospitals having necessary licence, approvals, and expertise… . " Before his surgery, he got an endorsement from the Centre noting that reimbursement at a non-empanelled hospital could only be given at CGHS rates and the difference would have to be borne by the petitioner. "This medical condition is certainly not a routine affair for the hospitals, much less for the central govt hospitals or those under the Central Government Health Scheme," observed the high court after hearing the Centre's lawyers Y R Sharma and Jain. The issue before the high court was whether, in his pressing situation, he could be denied full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by him for such major treatment merely because he opted for a private hospital. The question was also whether the rigours of the normal rule of medical reimbursement should make way for the case to be considered specially, the high court said, particularly as a heart transplant surgery is not a walk-in category of surgery. While in many cases reimbursements may not involve any dispute on the amount, it cannot mean that in very peculiar, serious, specialised cases of medical treatment, the reimbursement needs to be only as per the rates which are pre-determined, the high court observed, as it would then "be most unrealistic, unfair, and discriminatory as in the present situation". The high court added that even if it was a planned surgery, Nansi's claim for a full refund could not have been rejected, "or merely because the rates being notified, the petitioner ought not to be granted any reimbursement". The high court said: "It cannot be that the rules governing reimbursement are sacrosanct and nothing outside the rules in exceptional/special cases and especially deserving cases can be considered for reimbursement by the central govt. It would not require elaboration that in such matters, it is an accepted position that there is a free play in the joints and such category of cases are required to be considered on their merits. "Certainly, the heart transplant surgery is one of urgency and critical importance, and could not have been postponed. It is a special circumstance. It is imperative that such surgeries are expedited in the interest of human life without an embargo of an expenditure which is secondary to human life." Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Eid wishes , messages , and quotes !
Time of India
a day ago
- Time of India
HC grants conditional release of documents for PG medical students
Jaipur: Rajasthan High Court Friday provided relief to MBBS graduates pursuing post-graduate studies and directed SMS Medical College and other medical institutions to return their original documents in a case regarding post-PG senior residency internship. The court stipulated that petitioners must provide an undertaking to the state govt, agreeing to pay Rs 10 lakhs if they do not complete their senior residency. While hearing over two hundred petitions, including one by Dr Syed Shabaz and others, Justice Sameer Jain dismissed the state govt's review petition on grounds that the matter is already being heard by a division bench. "We have maintained that govt wants them to serve in govt hospital for 2 years after completing post-graduation," stated Archit Bohra, additional govt counsel. Petitioners explained that during PG course admission, applicant are required to sign a Rs 10 lakh bond, promising to serve the state govt for two years post-course, or pay the bond amount of Rs 10 lakh. Petitioners, however, challenged the govt's decision. TNN Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Eid wishes , messages , and quotes !
Indian Express
a day ago
- Indian Express
After 6 years, intervention by 2 ministries and Delhi HC, Australian child born in India through surrogacy gets exit visa nod
It took six years and multiple back-and-forths between two key Union ministries and the Delhi High Court to ensure an exit visa for a six-year-old child born through surrogacy to Indian-origin Australian citizens in 2019, before the Surrogacy Act came into force in 2022. In the absence of clarity among the two ministries – Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) – and after several 'procedural hurdles', the MHA on May 21 directed its Bureau of Immigration to issue an exit visa to the child, subject to payment of late fees for overstay beyond 90 days. The MHA then informed the high court of its decision, recorded in an order by Justice Sachin Datta on May 26. An exit visa is permission granted to a foreigner to leave India in the absence of a valid visa or entry into a country. In the case of the child, born in India and staying here since, his passport as an Australian citizen had no entry stamp to India, thus requiring an exit visa to leave the country. The MHA's decision came after the child's father, an Australian citizen, moved the Delhi High Court earlier this year seeking directions to issue an exit visa for his child, which he had applied for nearly two years ago on April 28, 2023. He is expected to fly out later this month to Australia with his son, say his lawyers Rakesh Kumar and Puneet Kumar. The child's parents are Australian citizens with Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) registration. Born in 2019 in India, the child obtained Australian citizenship in January 2023 following a court order and after complying with the necessary processes. The child's mother, who suffers from Crohn's disease, had decided to go for a gestational surrogacy in 2019 in compliance with Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) Guidelines, 2005, which required the execution of a surrogacy agreement with the surrogate mother and intended parent. This was prior to the Surrogacy Regulation Act, 2021, which only came into effect in January 2022. The baby was born in Indore in June 2019, and while his mother died in 2021 due to COVID-19, by January 2023, the boy's father obtained the child's Australian citizenship along with a Mumbai civil court order granting him permission to take the minor from India to Australia. Days after issuing an Australian passport to the child in April 2023, his father applied for an exit visa on behalf of his son through the e-portal of the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO). In June 2024, the application was shown as 'completed' on the portal but with directions to 'wait for further instructions.' However, on August 14, 2024, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW) issued an office memorandum (OM), informing the MHA that as per provisions of the Surrogacy Act 2021 and its Rules 2022, foreign nationals are not eligible to avail surrogacy services in India and, for a couple of Indian origin (OCI cardholders), they have to obtain a certificate of recommendation from the National Board formed under the Act before availing such surrogacy treatment. The office memorandum also sought documents from the father with respect to the surrogacy, by way of clarification. In further bureaucratic back and forth, in November 2024, the MHA sought that the father submit a No-Objection Certificate (NOC) from the MoHFW, and days later, the MoHFW telephonically informed the father that they are not responsible for issuing any such NOC. The petitioners – father and son – argued that the Surrogacy Act and its Rules cannot apply retrospectively as it was not in place when the child was born, and had termed the MoHFW's office memorandum of August 2024, directing them to submit proofs of requisite permissions as per the Act, as 'illegal'. When the case was first taken up by Justice Datta in April, it was argued that with the child obtaining admission in a school in Sydney for academic year 2025, the delay in the grant of visa is disrupting the child's education and prolonged absence from regular classes at school has led to issuance of absentee notice by the school, making him likely to suffer cancellation of his admission. At the time of the court hearing, the Union government was granted time to obtain instructions. On May 26, informing the court, the Union government submitted that 'during the year 2015, since there was no regulation on surrogacy in India, MHA had imposed restriction on grant of visa/exit permit to children born out of surrogacy to foreign nationals (including OCI cardholders).' 'Further, during the year 2021, the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 was introduced by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare and Surrogacy Rules were notified in 2022. The Surrogacy Rules permitted surrogacy only for Indian nationals and OCI cardholder parents. However, in the instant case, surrogacy was commissioned…before commencement of Surrogacy Regulation/law in India in violation of MHA guidelines,' the government told the high court. It added, 'Considering the peculiar circumstances of the case and in the interest of the child, the matter was examined in this Ministry. It has been decided to grant exit permit to the Petitioner No.1 after regularising his overstay period by charging appropriate financial penalty.' Taking the MHA's submission on record, Justice Datta thus directed that following payment of the necessary dues, the exit visa be granted to the child expeditiously, and disposed of the matter.
