Harsh Vardhan Mall Vishen vs University Of Delhi & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 2787 Del

$~
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      W.P.(C) 1495/2014 & CM APPL. 3120/2014

       HARSH VARDHAN MALL VISHEN        ..... Petitioner
                   Through  Mr. Sanjay Ray, Advocate

                            versus

       UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
                     Through  Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Advocate
                              for R-1 to 3.
                              Mr. Preet Pal Singh, Advocate for
                              R-4/BCI.


                                     Reserved on      : 15th May, 2014
%                                    Date of Decision : 29th May, 2014

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

                               JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J:

1. Present writ petition has been filed seeking the following prayers:-

"(a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing Respondent Nos. 1-3 to permit the Petitioner to appear for all the subject-examinations of Semester I Examinations (First Year, LL.B. Course) either in Semester III Examinations (Second Year) or Semester V (Third Year) or split across the latter two semesters, and make up for shortfall in attendance during those semesters.

(b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing Respondent Nos. 1-3 to permit the Petitioner to attend all classes and lectures in the ongoing Semester II (First Year LL.B. Course) for the Academic Year 2013-2014 and in this regard, directing Respondent Nos. 1-3 to mark his presence for all classes which the Petitioner has been

unable to attend owing to Respondent Nos. 1-3's unjustified refusal to allow him admission in Semester II.

(c) Issue a Writ or Certiorari directing Respondent Nos. 1-3 to produce all records of files and other documented records pertaining to the attendance of the Petitioner in Semester I (First Year, LL.B. Course) of the Academic Year 2013-2014.

(d) Issue any appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondent Nos. 1-3 to permit the Petitioner to be admitted on the rolls of Respondent No. 3 College as a student of the LL.B. Course for the Academic Year 2013-2014 till the final disposal of this Writ Petition.

(e) Pass any other appropriate Writ, order or direction keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case."

2. An identical issue raised in this writ petition has been decided by this Court in W.P.(C) 256/2014 on 27th May, 2014. The relevant portion of the judgment is produced below:-

"14. Having heard learned counsel for parties, this Court is of the view that the primary issue that arises for consideration is the interpretation of Rule 12 of Rules, 2008 and Rules 10 and 11 of the Bulletin of Information 2013-2014 which lay down the minimum attendance norms. Rule 12 of Rules, 2008 and Rules 10 and 11 of Bulletin of Information 2013-2014 are reproduced hereinbelow:-

A) Rule 12 of Rules 2008

"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........."

B) Rules 10 & 11of Bulletin of Information 2013-2014

"10. Attendance Rules

All the students of LL.B. shall have to put in minimum attendance of 66% of the lectures in each of the subjects as also at the moot courts and practical training course:

Provided that in exceptional cases for reasons to be recorded and communicated to the Bar Council of India, the Dean, Faculty of Law/Professor-in-Charge of the Law Centre concerned may condone attendance short of those required by this Rule, if the student had attended 66% of the lectures in the aggregate for the semester examinations.

The Professor-in-Charge of the Law Centre shall have power to strike off the name of a student who is grossly irregular in attendance inspite of warning, or, when the absence of students is for such a long period that he cannot put in requisite percentage of attendance.

11. Promotion Rules

(i) No student shall be promoted to the next Term, if he/she has been detained in the examination for shortage of attendance."

15. Though this Court at the prima facie stage was impressed by the argument of learned counsel for petitioner, yet on a deeper reflection of the matter, this Court is of the view that there is no contradiction between the aforesaid Rules.

16. Rule 12 of Rules, 2008 is couched in negative language. It does not prohibit or prevent the respondent-University from refusing to allow students to take end-semester exam in one or more subjects even if the student has 70% or more attendance in such subject if such student is not having aggregate attendance of 66% in all subjects.

17. Rule 12 of Rules, 2008 only lays down the minimum standard which cannot be diluted. It is always open to the University to lay down higher standards than the minimum bench mark prescribed by the Bar Council of India for promotion to the next term.

18. In the opinion of this Court, Rules, 2008 make the

attendance norms stricter by raising the attendance from 66% to 70% .

19. This Court is of the opinion that the way the petitioner is trying to read Rule 12 would lead to absurdity and would dilute the minimum attendance norms laid down by the University for students pursuing LL.B. course.

20. Consequently, the petitioner to be allowed to sit in any subject exam has to have overall attendance of 66% and 70% attendance in that particular subject. Even the Bar Council of India has confirmed the aforesaid interpretation in its counter affidavit.

21. The judgments relied upon by Mr. Saini offer no assistance to the petitioner as there is no contradiction between the Rules, 2008 and the Bulletin of Information 2013-2014......"

3. In view of the aforesaid reasoning, the present writ petition and application being bereft of merits are dismissed but with no order as to costs.

MANMOHAN, J th MAY 29 , 2014 rn/sk