Shekhar Kumar Singh And 2 Others vs Union Of India And 4 Others
2019 Latest Caselaw 2882 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 
Reserved
 
Court No. - 40
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40214 of 2018
 

 
Petitioner :- Shekhar Kumar Singh And 2 Others
 
Respondent :- Union Of India And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamlesh Kumar Yadav,Siddharth Khare
 
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Ajeet Kumar Singh,Pooja Agarwal
 

 
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

1. The petitioners are students of L.L.B. Honours Course run by the Banaras Hindu University (BHU), Varanasi. The petitioners were denied permission to appear in the Vth Semester Examination of the L.L.B. honours course by the respondent-University on the ground of paucity of attendance. The petitioners instituted this writ petition for a direction to the University to permit them to appear in the 5th semester L.L.B. Honours Course Examination for the academic session, 2018-19.

2. Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel assisted by Sri Kamlesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been precluded from appearing in the examination on ground of failure to achieve minimum attendance requirements. The criteria for attendance, which was created by the University on the eve of the examination, is contrary to the Bar Council of India Rules which regulate the minimum requirements of attendance for students pursuing the L.L.B. Honours Course. The University violated the aforesaid Rules and failed to conduct the requisite number of classes as contemplated in the aforesaid Rules. He further submits that the criteria, which was created by the University, was arbitrary and discriminatory in nature. The attendance criteria was changed after the commencement of the academic session. Further, the procedure adopted by the University in finalizing the requirements of attendance was arbitrary. The petitioners were never put to notice about the sudden change in attendance criteria. The petitioners were prejudiced both by the decision as well as the procedure adopted by the University. The petitioners did not have any opportunity to make good the short fall in the attendance, if at all, on account of the procedure adopted by the University and the criteria set by the University.

3. Per contra, Sri B.K. Upadhyay, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Pooja Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent-University contends that the criteria was created in the face of an extraordinary situation which demanded extraordinary measures on part of the University. The criteria was created while acceding to the demand of the students and a simultaneous endeavour was made to ensure that the overall criteria remained consistent with the Regulations of the Bar Council of India. The criteria of 40% attendance in the semester adopted by the respondent-University ensured that the overall attendance of the students for the entire degree course cumulatively aggregated to 70% which is the bench mark provided by the Bar Council of India Rules.

4. Certain relevant facts established beyond the pale of dispute are distilled from the exchange of pleadings and the records before this Court.

5. The petitioners were admitted in the L.L.B. Honours Degree Course in the Banaras Hindu University (B.H.U.) for the academic session, 2016-17. The petitioners were admitted to the 5th Semester of the L.L.B. Honours Degree Course in the month of July, 2018. The 5th semester of the L.L.B. Honours Course in the B.H.U. commenced on 25.07.2018 and ended on 04.11.2018. The programme for the L.L.B. Honours 5th semester examinations was declared by the respondent-University on 27.10.2018.

6. Due to paucity of attendance, a large number of students were debarred from appearing in the examination. A student's agitation ensued for relaxation in the attendance Rules. A settlement was arrived at between some groups of agitating students and the University authorities on 27.11.2018. The settlement relaxed the attendance criteria. It was resolved that the students, who had attended at least 40% of classes in the odd semester, would be permitted to appear in the examination on the undertaking that they will attend sufficient number of classes in the even semester to make an average 70% attendance in both semesters taken together. The settlement on the foot of which this criteria was created is annexed as Annexure-2 to the supplementary counter affidavit by the University. The stand of the University as asserted in the supplementary counter affidavit is that the criteria was "a reasonable justifiable via media".

7. A perusal of the settlement reflects some signatures on the document. The names of the parties with whom the settlement was entered into is absent. The document merely records that "a meeting was held on 27.11.2018  at 3.00 P.M. in the Dean's Chamber of the teachers of the Faculty along with the Dean of Students and Chief Proctor, B.H.U. to consider the step to be taken for smooth conducting of examinations and pacify the agitation". The agreement was arrived at and the new criteria for minimum attendance requirement was created after the declaration of the examination schedule on 27.10.2018. The criteria for minimum attendance requirements was thus changed at the end of the academic term and on the eve of the examinations.

8. The petitioners did not satisfy the criteria of 40% attendance. The attendance of the petitioners was below 40% in the 5th semester of the L.L.B. Honours Course Examination. 

9. The University unequivocally states that the attendance requirements are strictly governed and regulated in the aforesaid course by the Rules framed by the Bar Council of India. The University has sought to rationalize the newly created criteria as being based on "a reasonable via media" to ensure that a new criteria for minimum attendance requirement is created which is consistent with the Rules as framed by the Bar Council of India.

10. The Bar Council of India in exercise of powers under Section 7(1)(h)(i) read with Section 24(1)(c)(iii), and Section 49 (1)(af)(ag), and (d) of the Advocates Act, 1961 framed Rules to regulate the standards of legal education and recognition of degrees in L.L.B. for purpose of enrolment as advocates and inspection of Universities for recognizing its degree in L.L.B. The rules are called 'Rules of Legal Education'.

11. The Rules 10 and 12 are relevant to the controversy, which regulate and govern the requirements of minimum attendance and classes. The Rules are extracted hereunder for ease of reference:-

"Section 10. Semester System

The course leading to either degree in law, unitary or on integrated double degree, shall be conducted in semester system in not less than 15 weeks for unitary degree course or not less than 18 weeks in double degree integrated course with not less than 30 class-hours per week including tutorials, moot room exercise and seminars provided there shall be at least 24 lecture hours per week.

Provided further that in case of specialized and/or honours law courses there shall be not less than 36 class-hours per week including seminar, moot court and tutorial classes and 30 minimum lecture hours per week.

Provided further that Universities are free to adopt trimester system with appropriate division of courses per trimester with each of the trimester not less than 12 weeks.

Section 12. End Semester Test

No student of any of the degree program shall be allowed to take the end semester test in a subject if the student concerned has not attended minimum of 70% of the classes held in the subject concerned as also the moot court room exercises, tutorials and practical training conducted in the subject taken together.

Provided that if a student for any exceptional reasons fail to attend 70% of the classes held in any subject, the Dean of the University or the Principal of the Centre of Legal Education, as the case may be, may allow the student to take the test if the student concerned attended at least 65% of the classes held in the subject concerned and attended 70% of classes in all the subjects taken together. The similar power shall rest with the Vice Chancellor or Director of a National Law University, or his authorized representative in the absence of the Dean of Law.

Provided further that a list of such students allowed to take the test with reasons recorded be forwarded to the Bar Council of India."

12. The Rules create minimum requirements for classes which are to be conducted by the University and providing for minimum attendance which student needs to satisfy. The rationale behind the Rules is not far to seek.

13. The obligations of the University created under the Rules ensure that a high level of professionalism and consistency is maintained in the conduct of the academic schedule and academic rigour of the course is not diluted. The minimum attendance requirements which the students are mandated to achieve is part of the endeavour is to produce professionals with academic excellence and a well rounded exposure to the legal profession. There is good authority to hold that the Rules are mandatory in character.

14. The Rules thus create two fold obligations. The Rules obligate the University to hold a minimum number of classes. At the same time, the Rules enjoin upon the students to fulfill the minimum requirements of attendance. Under Rule 10 the University is required to hold 36 classes hours per week including seminars not less than 36 hours for the Honours and tutorial classes. Considering the importance of the L.L.B. Honours Course, the requirement on part of the University is further clarified by obligating the University to hold a minimum of 30 lectures per week.

15. In the facts of the case, the 5th Semester of the L.L.B. Honours Course the University lasted for almost 15 weeks. Lectures classes were scheduled on each working day. One lecture is conducted in a time period of one hour. Six lectures on 5 days would mean 30 lectures hours per week. A total number of 261 lectures hours were conducted by the University in the 5th Semester academic session. This fact has been categorically pleaded in the writ petition. Further, to fortify the aforesaid assertion, an attendance chart has been appended to the supplementary affidavit. The attendance chart records that the total lectures for the academic session were 261. The counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the University do not traverse these facts. The Court finds that total lectures conducted by the University for the 5th Semester, L.L.B. Honours Course were 261.

16. Going by the provisions of the Rule and simple mathematics the minimum requirement under Rule-10 would be 450 lecture hours for the entire semester. In fact the University has only conducted 261 lecture hours.

17. This being established position of facts the inevitable conclusion in law is that the University had violated the provisions of Rule-10 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The University failed to carry out its obligations under the Rules. The responsibility for failure to adhere to the Rules squarely rests upon the University.

18. However, at the same time, the University is holding the students accountable to the minimum standards of attendance required under the Rules. In effect the University wants the student to observe their part of the statutory obligations while the University itself has failed to perform its own statutory duties. Clearly this is an anomalous situation, which operates to the detriment of the students. Reduction in lecture hours means that the students have less head room for making good the short fall in the attendance. The students clearly have lesser chances and reduced possibility for making up the short fall in the attendance in the aforesaid semester.

19. This leads us to the second aspect of the controversy. The criteria for minimum attendance requirements was admittedly changed on the eve of the examination or rather at the near end of the academic session. The University in fact sprang a surprise on the petitioners by altering the criteria for minimum attendance requirements at the fog end of the academic session. Once again the prejudice caused to the petitioners is beyond recall. The petitioners did not have any opportunity to step up their performance or attendance in the classes to ensure that they achieved the attendance requirements. The students should be made aware of the attendance requirements at the commencement of the academic session. This would enable the students to plan their academic calender in advance.

20. The last minute changes in criteria for eligibility in examinations cannot be countenanced by the Courts. Case law in exact point does not come to mind but an analogous authority would be of assistance. The courts have set their face against any changes in recruitment Rules, after the recruitment has commenced. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Sohrab Vs. Aligarh Muslim University, reported at 2009 (4) SCC 555 as paras 18 and 19 held thus:

"18. The post advertised was meant for a person belonging to the pure Chemistry Department for if it was otherwise, then it would have been so mentioned in the advertisement itself that a person holding a Masters Degree in Industrial Chemistry should only apply or that a person holding such a degree could also apply alongwith other persons. It was not so mentioned in the advertisement and therefore, except for Merajuddin Ahmad, no other degree holder in Industrial Chemistry had applied for becoming a candidate as against the aforesaid post.

19. According to us, the Selection Committee as also the University changed the rule in the midstream which was not permissible. The University can always have a person as a Lecturer in a particular discipline that it desires to have, but the same must be specifically stated in the advertisement itself, so that there is no confusion and all persons who could be intending candidates, should know as to what is the subject which the person is required to teach and what essential qualification the person must possess to be suitable for making application for filling up the said post. "

21. The same proposition of law has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bishnu Biswas v. Union of India, reported at 2014(5) SCC 774. The rationale would apply to the facts of this case. The change in attendance criteria made by the BHU in the instant case at the end of the academic session is arbitrary and illegal.

22. The procedure adopted by the University to effect the change in the attendance criteria shall now be considered. Private negotiations were held by the University authorities with some students. There is complete ambiguity in the stand of the University as to who were the students with whom the University authorities had negotiated and what was the nature of their demands. In any case, the petitioners were never noticed or alerted to the impending change of minimum attendance criteria to enable them to voice their concerns or register their protest. The eligibility criteria for attendance cannot be changed after the commencement of the academic session to the detriment of the students without putting them to due notice. The procedure adopted by the University to affect the change in the attendance criteria is arbitrary and illegal.

23. The validity of the criteria of minimum attendance created by the University and which precluded the petitioners from appearing in the examinations will now be tested.

24. A criteria of 40% minimum attendance is sought to be justified on the foot of the requirements of the Rules as contemplated in Rule-12. The submission on the face of it appears to be attractive, but melts like cheap makeup in the arc light of judicial scrutiny. The Bar Council of India Rules do not give any leverage or authority to the University to relax the attendance criteria. In any case, the University cannot be in breach of the Rules of the Bar Council of India and claim that newly created criteria has in fact been made in conformity to the Rules of the Bar Council of India. The criteria of minimum 40% attendance is incompatible with the Rules. The criteria for attendance set by the University on the foot of which the petitioners were denied permission to appear in the examination is illegal, arbitrary and violates the Rules of the Bar Council of India. The creation of an arbitrary criteria leads to a discriminatory situation. The petitioners have been discriminated against since they were precluded from to appear in the examination on the foot of arbitrary criteria.

25. It would be apposite to fortify the narrative with the some judicial authority in point. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Adarsh Raj Singh Vs. Bar Council of India and others in Writ Petition No.5062 of 2018 along with companion writ petitions was seized with a similar situation. The students in that case were not being permitted to appear in the examination for having failed to achieve the requirement of minimum 70% attendance. The University did not hold the minimum classes under the Rules. Students were denied an opportunity to make good attendance shortfall on account of rule breach by the University. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the judgement and order entered on 06.07.2018 invalidated the stand of the Delhi University.

26. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court noticed that in the case of Adarsh Raj Singh (supra), the faculty of law had conducted classes which were far below the mandatory requirements of Rule 10 of the Bar Council of India Rules which held as para 31 as under:

"31. From the aforesaid conclusions, it becomes apparent that the Faculty of Law has during the Concerned Semester, reliably conducted only 230 hours of class, which is approximately only 50% of the mandatory requirement under Rule 10 of the BCI Rules of conducting at least 450 hours of class during a semester of the regular unitary LL.B. course. Needless to say, this is certainly a most regrettable state of affairs, especially for a leading centre of legal education in the capital of the country such as the Faculty of Law. There is no gainsaying that legal advocacy in India has acquired the status of a regulated profession due its direct nexus with general public interest. In democratic societies such as ours, where legal conflicts arising out of the exercise of competing legal rights are inevitable, it is imperative that lawyers have the requisite competence to ensure the skilled resolution of such conflicts before various judicial, legislative and executive forums. Access to an in-depth and multi-faceted legal education is perhaps, the most important measure for ensuring that young students acquire the skills necessary for any practicing advocate worth his/her salt. It is for this reason that the Bar Council of India has in Part IV of the Bar Council of India Rules, prescribed the mandatory standards of legal education that must be maintained by all recognized centres of legal education."

27. The consequences of the failure of the University to conduct the adequate number of classes as per Rule 10 of the Bar Council of India Rules and the adverse impact on the students were analyzed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Adarsh Raj Singh (supra). Para 37 reads as under:

"37. In view of the position that the Faculty of Law is in glaring violation of Rule 10 of the BCI Rules, I may now analyze the third and final issue before this Court, i.e., whether the Faculty of Law can detain its students on the ground of shortage of attendance in accordance with Rule 12 of the BCI Rules, when it has itself not complied with the said Rules and held the mandatory number of class hours prescribed thereunder. In determining this issue, it is important to first understand the effect of a recognized law college's non-compliance with the BCI Rules on its students' attendance. Given that Rules 10 and 2(xxiii) prescribe a mandatory minimum number of class hours and minimum number of working days to be conducted by any recognized centre of legal education, students have a reasonable expectation that their respective law colleges will comply with the same and hold the prescribed minimum number of class hours and minimum number of working days throughout a semester of their regular LL.B. course. Therefore, students understandably plan their leaves and own academic schedules as per the BCI Rules and their institute's own rules and regulations, if any, pertaining to absence and attendance. An academic curriculum, which includes the schedule of classes, must be determinate and predictable enough to allow students to plan their leaves and organize their respective academic schedules. Furthermore, it may be that due to some unforeseen circumstances such as sickness, family commitments, bereavements etc., even the most regular and dedicated of students may miss classes. Any well-planned academic curriculum must be able to accommodate such legitimate concerns and allow students a reasonable opportunity to make up the shortfall in their attendance caused due to such circumstances. When a recognized law college does not comply with Rule 10, it essentially deprives its students of a reasonable chance to attend the necessary number of classes to meet the mandatory attendance criteria prescribed under Rule 12, since it does not afford the students an adequate opportunity to make up the shortfall in their attendance due to classes missed on account of valid concerns, or leaves taken under the legitimate expectation of having an adequate opportunity to attend future classes to compensate for their absence."

28. The requirement of holding the adequate number of classes consistent with the requirements of Rule 10 and the legitimate expectations of the students were described by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Adarsh Raj Singh (supra). Paras 38 and 40 read as under:

"38. In the facts of present case, for instance, the Faculty of Law has admittedly held only about 230 hours of class during the Concerned Semester. Assuming that it had, in compliance with Rule 2(xxiii), held the mandatory minimum of 5 hours of class a day for its regular unitary LL.B. course, I find that the Faculty of Law had at best conducted only 46 days of class during the Concerned Semester, which is regrettably only 51% of the total requirement of 90 working days as per Rules 10 and 2(xxiii) of the BCI Rules. In order to meet the prescribed mandatory attendance criteria under Rule 12, students would have had to attend approximately 32 days of class, thereby leaving them with a very narrow margin of only 14 days to miss classes for any reason whatsoever. In comparison, if the Faculty of Law would have complied with the provisions of BCI Rules and conducted the requisite minimum of 450 hours of class over a total of at least 90 working days, students would have been able to avail 27 days of leave to meet the prescribed attendance criteria of 70% as per Rule 12. Evidently, students would have had a far more realistic and reasonable opportunity to make up any shortfall in their attendance had the Faculty of Law complied with the BCI Rules and held the prescribed mandatory minimum number of class hours.

40. Therefore, while there can be no doubt about the fact that the students of a regular LL.B. course must meet the attendance criteria prescribed under Rule 12 of the BCI Rules, the question in this case is whether they can be realistically expected to meet the said attendance criteria in the first place, when the number of classes actually held does not even afford them an adequate opportunity to make up the shortfall in their attendance due to classes missed on account of valid concerns, or leaves taken under the legitimate expectation of having an adequate opportunity to attend future classes to compensate for their absence? There is always a legitimate expectation with every student to bridge the shortfall in his/her attendance by the time the full term concludes. To render the same impossible or unfairly onerous, by not complying with the BCI Rules and holding the prescribed mandatory number of class hours and working days, definitely mars the students' prospects of achieving the minimum attendance criteria required by the Bar Council of India, especially in circumstances such as the present case where there is a glaring deficiency in the number of classes held by the concerned recognized centre of legal education."

29. The Karnataka High Court in the case of Kum. Radhika Garg Vs. The Director, Pre-University Board (Karnataka) and Anr. in Writ Petition No.5973 of 2012 was faced with a situation which admitted the fact of shortage of attendance and the competing claim of the inability of the Institution to hold special/extra classes. The Karnataka High Court emphasized the reformative and inclusive purposes of education. The Hon'ble Court opined that the momentary aberrations in youth are capable of correction with age. Such minor deviations cannot result in the loss of an academic year. The penalty will be disproportionate to the deviant conduct of the young adults. The relief was moulded to "bring about transformation in the erring college going students". The law was laid down in an enduring statement of law with a nuanced approach to grant of relief, was stated in the following terms:

"26. The basic purpose of imparting education is to make an individual a better human being. This cannot be lost sight of while attempting to bring about discipline and to achieve the academic excellence. Newer strategies, imaginative approaches, unconventional ways and means of bringing about transformation in the erring or the defiant College-going students are to be evolved. It is necessary that an erring adolescent has to be reformed and reclaimed as a useful member of the society. Every endeavour has to be made to bring about the reform in them. After all, it is the mandate of the welfarist State.

27. To meet the ends of justice, I dispose of this petition with the following order:

a) The second respondent is directed to hold the special classes for the petitioner from morning till evening on all the days including Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays till the date of the commencement of the supplementary examination. In giving this direction, I am fortified by a Division Bench judgment of Madras High Court, as extracted in the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANOTHER v. S.V. BRATHEEP (MINOR) AND ANOTHER reported in (2004)4 SCC 513, while examining the issue of eligibility to admission. The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted hereinbelow:

"3. Since the learned counsel appearing for Anna University pointed out that admissions atthis late juncture are likely to affect the University Attendance Regulations, we also direct that the shortage in the attendance of such students shall be compensated by holding special classes on Saturdays, Sundays and other holidays. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the engineering institutions have undertaken that teaching staff who are engaged for holding such special classes shall be paid extra and that no amount shall be collected by the institutions from the students."

30. Similarly, in the case of Mohanan M.E. v. University of Calicut [2016 SCC OnLine Ker 38639] and [2017(1) KLJ 701], the Kerala High Court noticed the violations on part of the University to conduct the minimum number of classes but ensured that the students do not suffer on account of cavalier or lackadaisical attitude of the University. The relevant paragraph 11 of the decision of the Court in Mohanan (supra) reads as under:-

"11. We do not know what purpose would still be served by declaring again and again the unexpendable nature of the requirement of minimum hours and working days. However, since the students still complain that the Colleges do not attain the requisite number of class hours or working days and that the competent authorities remain impervious to such transgressions, it becomes obligatory on our part to ensure that any such violation of the mandatory Rules do not enjoy convenient inconspicuousness. We caution the authorities that if they are blind or they pretend to be purblind to these violations, the Courts would be constrained and forced to step in to redress the legitimate issues raised by the student community. We cannot obviously be occluded in our vision when such patent instances of violations are brought to our notice and we caution the Colleges and Universities that if such transgressions are still continuing and placed to our notice, we would be compelled to issue such appropriate orders in future to ensure that our next generation would not suffer on account of the cavalier or lackadaisical attitude adopted by them in such matters of great importance."

31. Once it has been found that the petitioners were arbitrarily precluded from appearing in the examination, the question arises as to what the nature of the relief to which they are entitled.

32. The facts of the case have a decisive role in grant of relief. The grant of relief is a moment of reckoning in the process of law. The relief has to be moulded to ensure that there is no miscarriage of justice. This Courts have set their face against invocation of the doctrine a fate accompli to deny relief to the petitioners to which they have been found entitled by the courts. 

33. This court in the case of Dr. Muktakar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported at 2018 (2) ADJ 699 as para 50, 51 and 52 held thus:

"50. Fait accompli is a counsel of despair and cannot be elevated to a doctrine of law. The rule of law is founded on a premise of unquenchable hope and optimism that the arms of law are long enough to reach out to injustice and strong enough to redress it. The rule of moulding of relief by Courts, is an expression of this assurance. In such cases, if Courts are constrained by law to grant the relief prayed for in the petition, the Courts are obligated to mould the relief. Moulding of relief by Courts means grant of relief that is not specifically prayed for.

51. Law insists on observance of procedure. Justice demands that there should be no servitude to procedure.

52. The doctrine of moulding of relief by Courts is an indispensable tool in the administration of justice. The facts of this case require that the relief be moulded, to redeem the injustice and secure the ends of rule of law."

34. The Courts in similar matters have moulded the relief to ensure that the rights of the students are not compromised and at the same time, the imperative of academic excellence is not diluted. A just balance struck by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Adarsh Raj Singh (supra) by directing thus:

"45. For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned detention list dated 07.05.2018 and any other subsequent detention lists issued by the Faculty of Law are quashed insofar as they pertain to the Petitioners and other similarly situated students who could not meet the prescribed attendance criteria due to the Faculty of Law's failure to hold the prescribed mandatory minimum number of class hours during the Concerned Semester. As further consequential relief, this Court also issues the following directions:

i. The Faculty of Law must, within 8 weeks, hold at least 139 hours of extra classes/tutorials for all those students desirous of attending the same and making up the shortfall in their attendance caused only due to the Faculty of Law's failure to hold the mandatory minimum number of class hours in compliance with the BCI Rules. Since some of the Petitioners had been granted, by way of an interim relief, permission to give their end-semester examinations during the pendency of the present writ petitions, their respective results shall be declared provisionally. However, it is made clear that the same would be subject to them attending the requisite number of extra classes to be organized by the Faculty of Law, and subsequently meeting the mandatory attendance criteria prescribed under Rule 12 of the BCI Rules.

ii. The Faculty of Law must allow the students who could not meet the prescribed attendance criteria on account of their mid-semester admissions, to attend the 139 hours of extra classes/tutorials to be conducted pursuant to the aforementioned directions of this Court, and further conduct as many additional extra classes/tutorials in excess of the aforementioned 139 hours, as may be necessary to afford an adequate opportunity to such students to meet the mandatory attendance criteria prescribed under Rule 12 of the BCI Rules.

iii. In the meanwhile, the Faculty of Law must allow those of its students who were detained from giving their end-semester examinations due to shortage of attendance (caused only as a result of the Faculty of Law's aforementioned infractions) and could not be granted any interim relief, to take their supplementary examinations for the Concerned Semester. However, it is made clear that a student's result in respect of the said supplementary examinations shall be declared only if he/she meets the attendance criteria prescribed under the BCI Rules after attending the extra classes/tutorials held by the Faculty of Law pursuant to the directions of this Court hereinabove.

iv. The Bar Council of India is directed to exercise its statutory powers under the Advocates Act, 1961 as also the Bar Council of India Rules, and take immediate steps to ensure the compliance of inter alia the Rules of Legal Education, by all its recognized centres of legal education."

35. In the light of the preceding narrative, this Court finds that the petitioners were illegally and arbitrarily precluded from appearing in the 5th Semester L.L.B. Honours Course Examination by the respondent-University.

36. Some facts relevant to grant of relief are being mentioned at this stage. The petitioners did not clear a number of examinations in the previous semesters. As such, the petitioners cannot be granted their degrees even if they qualify the 5th and 6th semesters along with rest of their batch-mates. The degrees can be awarded only after the petitioners pass the backlog examinations of their previous semesters.

37. A writ of mandamus is issued commanding the respondent-University/competent officials of the University to execute the following directions:

I. The University authorities will conduct extra classes for the 5th Semester even on Saturdays, Sundays and during the vacation period to enable the students to make good the short fall in the attendance. The University shall ensure that the adequate number of classes are held. It shall be open to the University to advise other similarly situated students to attend the classes if they desire to appear in the examination.

II. The University authorities shall hold special examination of the 5th semester of the L.L.B. Honours for the petitioners, immediately after the adequate number of classes for the 5th Semester are conducted.

III. After declaration of the 5th Semester result, the University authorities shall ensure that the adequate number of classes for the petitioners are conducted for the 6th Semester. The time-line of classes and examinations of the 5th and 6th Semester respectively shall be so created as to ensure that these are held before the commencement of backlog examinations of the previous Semesters of the petitioners. In other words, the results of the 5th and 6th examinations of the petitioners shall be declared before the backlog examinations of the previous semesters of the petitioners commence. This time line shall be strictly adhered to by the respondent-University.

38. It is clarified that the petitioners undertake to attend all the extra classes which will be conducted by the University to enable them to make good short fall in the attendance. In case the petitioners fail to appear in the classes and do not make good the short fall in the attendance, the University is free to take appropriate action in accordance with law.

39. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms.

Order Date :- 12.04.2019

Ashish Tripath