Harsh Sethi vs Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha ...
2010 Latest Caselaw 3844 Del

              *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+        W.P.(C) 3243/2010 & CM No.6473/2010 (for interim relief)

%                                      Date of decision : 18th August, 2010.

         HARSH SETHI                                           ..... Petitioner
                            Through:      Mr. Arun Bhardwaj & Mr. Rakesh K.
                                          Khanna, Sr. Advocates with Mr.
                                          Vinod Kumar & Ms. Neha Garg,
                                          Advocates.
                                       Versus

         GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY
         & ORS.                                 ..... Respondents
                         Through: Mr. O.P. Saxena, Advocate.

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            No
         in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petitioner, a student of five year Bachelor of Law (L.L.B.)

(Hons.) Degree Course of University School of Law & Legal Studies of the

respondent no.1 University, has filed this writ petition seeking relief of

directing the respondent no.1 University to conduct the 5th term examination

of the petitioner along with the exams of the University being conducted in

May/June 2010 and in the alternative for a direction to the respondent no.1

University to hold Special Examination for the petitioner for the 5 th term so

that his final results could be declared along with the other students of his

batch.

2. The petitioner joined the said course comprising of 10 Semesters in

the year 2005. The petitioner was promoted to the 5 th Semester in July 2007

and the 5th Semester examination were to be held in December, 2007. The

petitioner was however not permitted to take his 5 th Semester examination

for the reason of failing to meet the criteria of attendance of 75% or more in

the aggregate of all the courses taken together in a Semester. The petitioner

had only 63% attendance. Though the petitioner did not take the 5 th

Semester examination but on his representations, was promoted to the 6 th

Semester along with his batchmates. The Rules of the respondent no.1

University though prevent such promotion but empower the Dean of the

concerned School to promote a student detained on account of attendance, to

the next Semester on the condition that the student complies with all the

requirements of attendance for the said Semester and at the close of the last

Semester of the academic programme completes the Semester in which he

has been detained. The petitioner was thereafter promoted from time to time,

finally to the 10th Semester in January, 2010 and due in May/June, 2010 to

take his 10th Semester examination. However, the petitioner till now had

not cleared the 5th Semester examination. Faced with the prospect of being

required to repeat the 5th Semester even after taking examination of 10th

Semester, the present writ petition was filed. The same was accompanied

with an application for interim relief to permit the petitioner to take 5 th

Semester examination along with 10th Semester examination, in the

examinations held in May/June, 2010. No interim relief was granted to the

petitioner.

3. The respondent no.1 University has filed a counter affidavit

contesting the writ petition and to which a rejoinder has been filed.

4. Though, the petitioner has taken numerous grounds in the writ

petition but the Senior Counsel for the petitioner has confined the

submissions to one particular aspect. It is contended that as per the

curriculum of the course, the petitioner even prior to 5 th Semester, was

undertaking internship with Law Firms/Advocates; that as per the practice

then being followed by the University, the time spent in internship etc. was

counted in the attendance; that the petitioner in the 5 th Semester also, had

applied to the respondent no.1 University for internship with a senior

advocate of this Court from 1st September to 30th September, 2007 on the

prescribed form therefor provided by the University itself. Column 5 of the

said form is as under:-

"I will submit the report within the three days after completion of the said internship."

The printed note at the foot of the said form is as under:-

"The relaxation in attendance will be confirmed after the submission of the report on the related activity."

5. It is not in dispute that the permission for internship aforesaid was

granted by the respondent no.1 University to the petitioner. The Senior

Counsel for the petitioner has contended that from the aforesaid form

prescribed by the University itself, it is clear that the University was

following the Rule/Practice of giving relaxation in attendance for the period

of internship. It is urged that the petitioner interned as aforesaid in the

legitimate expectation that he would be given the benefit of the attendance

for the full term of internship. The petitioner after completing the internship

submitted the certificate of the senior advocate confirming that the petitioner

had undertaken the internship from 1st September to 30th September, 2007

and also recommending remission in attendance for the said period.

6. The respondent no.1 University in its counter affidavit has relied on

the Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee of the University for

reviewing the University Ordinance relating to attendance for L.L.B.

(Hons.) students. The Senior Counsel for the petitioner with reference

thereto has shown that the said Committee was constituted owing to a sea

change in the scenario of legal education. It is contended that because the

legal education now, besides attending classes also comprises of Moot

Competitions, Internal Moot Courts, Research for Project Work, Internship,

Participation in Workshops, Organization of Clinical Legal Programmes

etc., provision was made therefor. However, while making the said

provision, for internship benefit of actual attendance for 15 days only in a

Semester was given. It is contended that the respondent no.1 University

applying the said new Rules gave benefit to the petitioner only of 15 days

instead of 30 days for which the petitioner had undertaken the internship. It

is stated that the Rule for giving benefit of 15 days and not of 30 days for

internship as was earlier done, came into force only after 31st August, 2007

while the petitioner had commenced his internship from 1st September, 2007

without knowledge of the same. The argument of the Senior Counsel for the

petitioner is that the said Rule ought not to be applied retrospectively and if

benefit of entire 30 days internship is given, the petitioner meets the

requisite attendance target.

7. The counsel for the respondents has not controverted the facts

aforesaid. He has however drawn attention to the undertaking given by the

petitioner to the University on 12th May, 2008 and on the basis whereof he

was permitted to take the 6th Semester examination. The petitioner had

undertaken to complete the attendance of the 5th Semester at the close of the

10th Semester and had agreed that result of the 10th Semester be declared

only after he passes the 5th Semester examination. It is contended that the

petitioner cannot be permitted to seek a relief contrary to his undertaking. It

is further contended that the petitioner was promoted to the 6 th Semester

notwithstanding having not cleared the 5th Semester, only because of the

undertaking and if now re-siling from the undertaking, is required to repeat

from the 6th Semester onwards.

8. The Senior Counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder has contended that

asking the petitioner to now attend the classes of the 5 th Semester would

embarrass the petitioner before his to be peers and would also not serve any

useful purpose. Without prejudice to the contentions, it is offered that at the

most the balance number of classes can be directed to be attended. It is also

urged that the petitioner has in the writ petition itself explained the

circumstances in which the undertaking was given; the petitioner a few days

before the examination was being prevented from taking the examination for

the 6th Semester also and had no option but to give the undertaking on the

dotted line and as per the format prepared by the respondent no.1 University.

It is also pointed out that nowhere in the said document the petitioner has

admitted that his attendance was short.

9. The respondent no.1 University has not shown as to what was the

Rule prior to 31st August, 2007 with respect to internship; how many days

internship in a Semester was permitted and what benefit thereof qua

attendance was given. From the printed form of the University in which the

petitioner had applied for internship from 1st September to 30th September,

2007, it does appear that then the benefit in attendance of the entire

internship period if completed successfully was being given. The petitioner

immediately after 31st August, 2007 could not be expected to know of the

change position i.e. of the benefit of 15 days internship only being given.

The petitioner would be entitled to succeed on the said ground.

10. As far as the defence of the respondent no.1 University of the

"undertaking" is concerned, it is not as if the undertaking was taken in

January, 2008 while promoting the petitioner to the 6 th Semester. The

undertaking is of a day around the time of the examination and it is quite

believable that the petitioner at that time had no choice. The counsel for the

respondents has relied on the judgment dated 14th May, 2010 of this Court in

W.P.(C) No.3333/2010 titled Gautam Mudgal Vs. Guru Gobind Singh

Indraprastha University. The petitioners in the said case had also given a

similar undertaking. This Court dismissed the writ petition. However, in the

present case, I have concluded that the petitioner was wrongly held to be

short of attendance in the 5th Semester and therefore wrongly deprived from

taking the examination and thus the said judgment would not apply.

11. However the fact remains that even if the petitioner in the

circumstances as aforesaid made to give the undertaking, he thereafter also

waited for over two years to prefer the present writ petition. The petitioner

appears to have been content in the thought of repeating the 5th Semester

after completing his 10th Semester. Only now when the thought of attending

the classes along with his juniors has come in the mind of the petitioner, the

present writ petition has been filed. In my view, though the undertaking

aforesaid cannot non-suit the petitioner, but the delay in preferring the

petition deprives the petitioner of the relief of directing the respondent no.1

University to hold a Special Examination for 5th Semester for him.

12. The Senior Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the order dated

8th December, 2009 of this Court in W.P.(C) No.11514/2009 titled Apoorve

Vashistha Vs. Guru Govind Singh Indraprastha University where Special

Examination was directed to be held. The counsel for respondent University

relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in . Vipin

Sharma Vs. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University

MANU/DE/1863/2009 holding that such a direction for holding Special

Examination cannot be given even otherwise as aforesaid, in the facts of this

case, no case for directing Special Examination is made out.

13. The petition is therefore allowed to aforesaid extent. It is directed that

the petitioner is entitled to relaxation of attendance for the entire period of

internship from 1st September to 30th September, 2007. The petitioner

would as such not be required to attend the classes of the 5 th Semester again

as a pre-condition for taking 5th Semester examination. However, for the

reason of the delay in preferring the writ petition, the petitioner is not found

entitled to the relief claimed, of direction to the respondent no.1 University

to hold a Special Examination for 5th Semester for the petitioner. The

petitioner would thus be entitled to take the 5th Semester examination to be

held next by the respondent no.1 University in the routine course.

Axiomatically, the 10th Semester examination result of the petitioner to be

declared subject to the petitioner taking and clearing the 5th Semester

examination.

The writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) 18th August, 2010 bs..