Neetu Sharma vs Delhi University & Anr.
2010 Latest Caselaw 3575 Del

             *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                            Date of decision: 2nd August, 2010.

+        W.P.(C) No.2775/2010 & CM No.5535/2010 (for interim relief).

%

NEETU SHARMA                                                   ..... Petitioner
                            Through:      Mr. Neeraj Kumar Singh, Advocate.

                                       Versus

DELHI UNIVERSITY & ANR.                                     ..... Respondents
                 Through:                 Ms. Manisha with Mr. Amit Bansal,
                                          Advocates.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may
         be allowed to see the judgment?                           No

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?                    No

3.       Whether the judgment should be reported
         in the Digest?                                            No

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petitioner, a Non-Collegiate student of Laxmi Bai College, Ashok

Vihar, Delhi (which has not been impleaded as a respondent), has preferred

this petition impugning the action of the respondent University of not

allowing the petitioner to appear in the examination for promotion from

Second to the Third year, for the reason of the petitioner not meeting the

requisite attendance criteria. This Court vide ad-interim order dated 26th

April, 2010 directed the respondent University to issue the admit card to the

petitioner so as to enable her to appear in the examination. It was however

made clear that for the reason of being so allowed to take the exams, no

special equities will flow in favour of the petitioner. The counsel for the

petitioner informs that pursuant to the said directions the petitioner has

appeared only in three out of the six papers in the said exam, in as much as

the examination of three papers had already been held prior to the order

aforesaid.

2. The petitioner has 29% instead of the requisite 66% attendance. The

case of the petitioner is that she was participating in a dramatic activity on

behalf of the College and owing whereto had to miss her classes. The

counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was throughout

assured by her teachers that since she was participating in the activity on

behalf of the College, she need not to worry about attendance and would be

given the requisite attendance. The counsel for the petitioner contends that

the said averment in the petition has not been controverted by the

University. Though the counsel for the respondent University contends that

the aforesaid averment in the petition has been controverted in the counter

affidavit but in any case the averment was directed against the College and

whom the petitioner has chosen not to implead as a party. The attendance is

marked by the respective Colleges and only on the basis of the attendance

record forwarded by the Colleges to the University, the University issues the

admit card for the examination. The grievance if any of the petitioner of the

attendance being not marked is with respect to the College which has not

been sued.

3. I have enquired from the counsel for the petitioner whether the

petitioner was the only student from the College participating in the drama

aforesaid and if there were other participants also, whether they have also

been denied the attendance. The counsel for the petitioner states that there

were seven or eight students who were participating in the said drama and

all of whom have not faced any problem of attendance and it is only the

petitioner who has not been marked as present while her colleagues in the

said dramatic activity were given the requisite attendance. The same would

again be a grievance against the College which has not been sued.

4. The respondent University has even otherwise in its counter affidavit

stated that as per the policy of the respondent University, for the

participation in extracurricular activities, the teacher in charge is entitled to

give only 6% credit in the attendance. The shortfall as aforesaid of the

petitioner is much beyond thereto.

5. The respondent University its counter affidavit has also stated and the

counsel for the petitioner does not controvert that the petitioner in the first

year also was short of attendance, having only 46% attendance but was still

permitted to take the exams on the basis of her undertaking to the University

that she will attend more classes in the following year and will be detained if

fails to fulfill the requirement of cumulative attendance of at least 67%. The

petitioner in the said undertaking had also promised to attend 100% classes

and be regular and improve her performance in the following year. The

factum of having furnished the said undertaking has been concealed by the

petitioner in the petition; rather during the arguments it was sought to be

contended that the Non-Collegiate students were not told of the newly

introduced Rule w.e.f. Academic Year 2008-09 qua minimum attendance of

Non-Collegiate students also. However the said argument is falsified from

the undertaking of the petitioner which is not disputed. The petitioner is not

entitled to any discretionary relief for practicing such concealment and

falsely contending that she was not informed of the requirement for

minimum attendance.

6. The counsel for the respondent University also draws attention to

Kangana Modi Vs. National Institute of Fashion Technology

MANU/DE/1197/2010 and which in turn relies upon the Division Bench

judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.9143/2007 titled Kiran Kumari Vs.

Delhi University laying down that in matters relating to academics and

standards of education, the Court would show deference to the opinion of

the academicians unless a case of patent perversity is made out. The counsel

for the petitioner contends that there can be no criteria for attendance in the

Non-Collegiate course. The said question has neither been raised in the

petition nor falls for consideration, the petitioner having given the

undertaking aforesaid. No case of perversity is made out in the present

petition.

7. Self study is not sufficient. Even though, distance learning has come

to be widely accepted as a universal mode of acquiring knowledge, skills

and qualifications, yet traditional forms of knowledge dissemination holds

great relevance where instructional interface is mandatory. The requirement

of minimum attendance is not a mere formality but a term of eligibility to sit

for the examination.

8. The Division Bench of this Court in Ashutosh Bharti Vs. The

Ritnand Balved Education Foundation (Regd.) MANU/DE/0024/2005 and

in Arvind Gupta Vs. University of Delhi MANU/DE/0238/1980 and in

Preeti Srivastava Vs. CBSE MANU/DE/0484/1994 and Single Judge of

this Court in Yogesh Bhatia Vs. University of Delhi MANU/DE/0784/2003

and in Neera Dadhwal Vs. Deepak Paintal MANU/DE/8392/2007 have

emphasized the importance of attendance and that Rules with regard thereto

cannot be given a go bye on sympathetic grounds.

9. There is no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) 2nd August, 2010 pp