A college student who was found drunk in a gurukul-style campus that puts a premium on discipline is set to lose an academic year, as the Madras high court has upheld the decision of Vivekanantha College in Thiruvedagam, Madurai district, to either expel the student or debar him from its campus for one year.
Justice S Vaidyanathan, highlighting every youth's duty towards the nation, cited the Supreme Court rulings and said: “If a student does not behave properly , and should there be any act of indiscipline, which is not conducive to the interests of the institution, the schoolcollege authorities have every right to send that student out of the college.“
The matter relates to a third year BA economics student Thennarasu who was disallowed from writing his final semester examination along with two arrear papers as he was found drunk while returning to hostel on March 15. His father had been summoned and inquiries held. At the end of the exercise, there were only two options before him: One, he could move out of the college by taking transfer certificate (TC) and join some other; Two, skip the course for one year.
In a writ petition, Thennarasu said he had already paid fee for his final semester examination, and that his debar , ment at this stage would adversely affect his prospects.
The college management said that ever since its incep, tion in 1971, the college had been following the `Guruku lam pattern' of education and discipline is primarily inculcated. Noting that misconduct committed by students cannot be tolerated, it said even at the time of admission, each student and parent are informed that consuming alcohol will lead to dismissal. Denying any discrimination, it said the same punishment is usually given for such misconduct. Justice Vaidyanathan agreed with the management's stand, and said: “The conten tion of the college principal that if the rules and regula tions are relaxed and diluted to suit the convenience of an in dividual student, then the fu ture of the Gurukula institute will be at peril, cannot be , brushed aside.“
Dismissing the petition as being devoid of merits, the ; judge said he was refraining from imposing an exemplary costs on the student only because of the fact that his par ent would have to bear the costs for the misconduct com mitted by him.
Justice S Vaidyanathan, highlighting every youth's duty towards the nation, cited the Supreme Court rulings and said: “If a student does not behave properly , and should there be any act of indiscipline, which is not conducive to the interests of the institution, the schoolcollege authorities have every right to send that student out of the college.“
The matter relates to a third year BA economics student Thennarasu who was disallowed from writing his final semester examination along with two arrear papers as he was found drunk while returning to hostel on March 15. His father had been summoned and inquiries held. At the end of the exercise, there were only two options before him: One, he could move out of the college by taking transfer certificate (TC) and join some other; Two, skip the course for one year.
In a writ petition, Thennarasu said he had already paid fee for his final semester examination, and that his debar , ment at this stage would adversely affect his prospects.
The college management said that ever since its incep, tion in 1971, the college had been following the `Guruku lam pattern' of education and discipline is primarily inculcated. Noting that misconduct committed by students cannot be tolerated, it said even at the time of admission, each student and parent are informed that consuming alcohol will lead to dismissal. Denying any discrimination, it said the same punishment is usually given for such misconduct. Justice Vaidyanathan agreed with the management's stand, and said: “The conten tion of the college principal that if the rules and regula tions are relaxed and diluted to suit the convenience of an in dividual student, then the fu ture of the Gurukula institute will be at peril, cannot be , brushed aside.“
Dismissing the petition as being devoid of merits, the ; judge said he was refraining from imposing an exemplary costs on the student only because of the fact that his par ent would have to bear the costs for the misconduct com mitted by him.
No comments:
Post a Comment