Ankit Singh vs University Of Delhi & Anr.
2009 Latest Caselaw 1967 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                    LPA 208/2009 & CM Nos.6719-20/2009


        ANKIT SINGH                                      ..... Appellant
                          Through:     Mr. Lalit Kumar, Mr. Sunil Dalal
                                       and Mr. S.S. Khatri, Advocates.

                     versus


        UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ANR.              ..... Respondents
                       Through: Mr. J.S. Rupal, Advocate.

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL
                      ORDER

% 11.05.2009

CM No. 6720/2009 (for exemption) in LPA 208/2009

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

LPA 208/2009 & CM No.6719/2009 (for stay)

3. The appellant (original petitioner in the writ petition) is

aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 5th May,

2009. The appellant had not been permitted to appear in the B.A.

Programme first year examination on account of shortage of

attendance. The learned Single Judge has observed that in the

petition, there was no averment as to the percentage of lectures

attended by the petitioner. However, during the course of hearing,

learned counsel for the appellant stated before the learned Single

Judge that the appellant had attended 17% lectures and had

absented himself from 83% of the lectures.

4. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that as per the

ordinance, the appellant being a sports person was entitled to the

benefit of exclusion to the extent of 1/3rd of the total number of

lectures delivered. Even if the appellant is given the said benefit, he

does not fulfill the minimum attendance norm.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has drawn our

attention to a letter dated 28th April, 2009 (Annexure-L/3), whereby

the Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association (in short 'HPCA') has

certified that the appellant has attended camps of the 'Under-19

HPCA Team' and that he had also represented the HPCA in the

'Under-19 Category'. It is submitted on behalf of counsel for

respondent No. 1, that the appellant has not annexed any document

to show that these camps were attended by the appellant with the

consent/permission of the respondents.

6. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the appellant himself

has admitted that he has not attended more than 17% of the lectures

and has absented himself from 83% of the lectures. If that is the

admitted position, then clearly the appellant is barred by the Statute

from taking the examination due to shortage of attendance. Even if

the story of the appellant is accepted that he actually did attend

these camps/matches, it still does not help the appellant as he is

below the minimum cut-off percentage as stipulated by the Statute.

7. To ensure standards of discipline, minimum attendance norms

have been prescribed. Persons who participate in sports and other

activities are entitled to exclusion not exceeding 1/3rd of the total

number of lectures. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that

dilution of standards will have an adverse effect on the reputation of

the University and value of the degree.

8. We find no merit in the appeal as no ground has been made

out to warrant any interference with the order of the learned Single

Judge. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The pending

application also stands disposed of.

CHIEF JUSTICE

NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL, J.

MAY 11, 2009 Sb/RS