Delhi High Court
Himanshu Garg & Ors. vs Faculty Of Law & Anr. on 7 December, 2011
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 7th December, 2011.
+ W.P.(C) 8538/2011
% HIMANSHU GARG & ORS. .......Petitioners
Through: Mr. R.K. Saini & Mr. Vikram Saini,
Adv.
Versus
FACULTY OF LAW & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Mohinder Rupal & Ms. Shawana
Bari, Adv.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
JUDGMENT
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The three petitioners have filed this writ petition impugning Rule
12/provision in the prospectus of LL.B. three years course issued by the
Faculty of Law, University of Delhi whereby re-admission in the first year
of the course has been prohibited under any circumstance if the student is
detained from appearing in the first semester examination on account of
shortage of attendance. The petitioners further impugn the action of the
respondents of refusing to allow the petitioners to appear in the first
semester examination on the ground of not having the requisite attendance
attendance.
2. The petitioners herein were granted admission to the LL.B. course
late, on 18th and 19th October, 2011 respectively pursuant to the judgment
dated 3rd October, 2011 of a Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C)
No.6933/2011 titled Anuj Sharma v. University of Delhi on conversion of
the vacant OBC category seats to seats for General category. The said
judgment itself contained directions for holding of special classes to
compensate for the classes which had been missed by those who were to be
admitted late and so that the curriculum to appear in the first semester
examination could be covered.
3. The counsel for the respondents appearing before us on advance
notice stated in the morning session when the case was taken up that the
petitioners had been refused permission to appear in the examination since
they had not even attended the requisite 66% of the total number of classes
held after they were admitted. The said position was controverted by the
counsel for the petitioners. Being of the view that if the petitioners did not
meet the attendance criteria, they ought not to be permitted to take the
examination provisionally also, we passedover the matter to enable the
counsel for the respondents to produce the original records of attendance
before us.
4. The counsel for the respondents has on the basis of the records
brought by him stated that 55 extra classes were held for the students who
had been admitted late and their attendance has been computed on the basis
of the classes held with effect from the date of their respective admission as
also the special classes held. It is further informed that the petitioner no.1
attended 72 out of the total 113 classes; the petitioner no.2 attended 71 out of
the total 115 classes and the petitioner no.3 attended only 59 out of the total
113 classes. It is thus stated that neither of the petitioners meets the criteria
of required attendance of 66%.
5. The counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioner no.1
is short by a mere three classes only and the attendance of the petitioner no.2
is short by mere five classes only.
6. We are however unimpressed. It has been held in a catena of
judgment (S. N. Singh v. UOI 106 (2003) DLT 329 DB and other judgments
noticed in Gagandeep Kaur v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
MANU/DE/3049/2010) that attendance particularly in professional courses
as law has to be ensured strictly and no leniency can be shown on medical or
other grounds also. The Bar Council of India has refused to enroll advocates
studying law through distance learning for the reason of attendance of
classes being must and imbibing through personal lectures and interaction
being a necessity to acquire proficiency in the subject. If the courts were to
start intervening in such matters, there would be no end. The petitioners
have in the petition not even stated any reason for their having not attended
the classes. We are of the view that the petitioners having been admitted late,
after nearly half the semester was over, had a greater onus upon them to
attend the remaining classes. The petitioners have shown lackadaisical
attitude and deserve no sympathy from this Court.
7. As far as the challenge by the petitioners to Rule 12 (supra) is
concerned, in the peculiar facts of this case we do not deem it necessary to
go into the validity thereof. The petitioners as aforesaid were admitted
pursuant to a Court order, when nearly half of the semester was over. We
therefore direct that notwithstanding the petitioners having been detained
from appearing in the first semester examination on account of shortage of
attendance, their admission to the LL.B. course shall not be cancelled and
they shall not be required to take re-admission in the ensuing academic year.
8. The writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
DECEMBER 7, 2011
pp..
