Delhi High Court
Madhushree Maitra And Ors. vs University Of Delhi on 1 May, 2018
$~39
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 1st May, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 11083/2017
MADHUSHREE MAITRA AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through Dr. Sarbjit Sharma with Ms. Leeza
Taneja, Advocates.
versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Mr. Prang
Newmai & Ms. Slomitra Rai,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. Rule D.B. Pleadings are complete. With the consent of the counsels
for the parties, the writ petition is set down for final hearing and
disposal.
2. 17 petitioners have filed the present writ petition being aggrieved by
the action of the University for not promoting them to the next
semester on account of shortage of attendance. We may note that the
17 students pertain to different law centres and pertain to different
semesters. 9 petitioners are in the first semester, 6 petitioners are in
third semesters and 2 petitioners are in fifth semester.
3. Dr. Sarabjit Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
there is a prerequisite of achieving 70% attendance in aggregate and
66% attendance in each subject for appearing in the examination. The
attendance of each semester is considered for allowing or debarring a
student. The present petitioners have been debarred from appearing in
the current semesters. Learned counsel for the petitioners and,
petitioner no.1, who has appeared in person, submit that the
attendance of the petitioners have not been correctly reflected in the
record of the University. It is also submitted that the University did
not have the necessary record as a C.P.U., which contained the entire
attendance record of the students was stolen. A strong reliance is
placed on the copy of FIR, which has been placed on record. It is next
contended that the University has not acted in a fair and just manner as
many students have been granted attendance of the class they did not
attend, however, the present petitioners are faced with discrimination
at the hands of the University. It has also been contended before us
that in case the petitioners are not permitted to appear in their
respective examinations, they will be put to great hardship, more
particularly, 9 students of the first semester, who would have to appear
again in the entrance test and on account of growing competition,
there may be a possibility of their not being able to succeed in seeking
fresh admission. Learned counsel for the petitioners and petitioner
no.1 have also made serious efforts to bring to the notice of the Court
how extra attendance has been granted to some students while the
petitioners have been discriminated.
4. Mr. Rupal, learned counsel appearing for the University of Delhi
categorically submits on instructions that no doubt there was a theft of
the C.P.U. but the C.P.U. did not contain the attendance record of the
students, which is also evident from the fact that the record of the
students was produced in Court and examined by the petitioners.
Additionally, he submits that the petitioners have not been
discriminated, in fact, every effort has been made to grant attendance
to the students as a whole and in fact across the board, the students
have been granted benefit of 48 lectures without going into
technicalities as to whether they had attended the moot courts,
seminars etc. or not. Counsel further submits that the effort of the
University is to ensure that the regulations are enforced but University
also makes every attempt to accommodate the students wherever it is
possible in accordance with rules. Counsel denies and disputes that
students have been discriminated or some students have been
favoured. Mr. Rupal submits that the University has followed a
transparent policy and the relevant record was produced and the
petitioners were allowed to inspect the same and satisfy themselves.
Mr. Rupal also submits that not only records pertaining to the
petitioners were produced and inspected by the petitioners, but records
pertaining to those students, who according to the petitioners had been
favoured were also produced and inspected by the petitioners.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. This matter was listed
for the first time on 12.12.2017 and adjourned for 13.12.2017 at 10:30
AM. On 13.12.2017, when the following order was passed :
"The matter was listed yesterday at 4:00 pm and directed
to be listed today at 10:30 am to enable learned counsel for the
respondent to obtain instructions relating to shortage of
attendance.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent has produced before
this court a chart with percentage of attendance in the case of
the 17 petitioners. The figures give a poor impression and
would not justify an interim direction. The attendance figures,
as given by learned counsel for the respondent, are given
below:
S. No Petitioner/Student Name Percentage of
Attendance.
1. Madhushree Maitra (LC2) 39%
2. Shri Bhagwan (LC2) 41%
3. Ridhema Jain (LC2) 45%
4. Sumit Rai (LC2) 37%
5. Vijay Pujari (LC2) 49%
6. Kanwar Singh (LC2) 29%
7. Rahul Kumar (LC2) 43%
8. Richa Porwal (LC2) 43%
9. Rakshanda (LC2) 33%
10. Rohit Sharma (CLC) 33.67%
11. Rajesh Kumar Meena (CLC) 28.24%
12. Manjeet Singh (LC1) 38.4%
13. Prativindya Poonia (CLC) 40.76%
14. Vijay Singh Meena (LC1) 47.5%
15. Vikas Kumar (LC1) 44.4%
16. Ankit Gupta (LC1) 40.7%
17. Shahjad Ali Nagra (LC1) 33.2%
3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners, that
CPU containing the attendance record was stolen, has been
controverted by learned counsel for the respondent on
instructions. It is stated that backups were available and after
proper check and verification the petitioners herein have been
detained on account of shortage of attendance.
4. We also are not impressed with the argument that the
students with shortage of attendance should be permitted and
allowed to sit in the examination as students, who have failed or
have not appeared in 1st, 3rd and 5th semesters examination, are
permitted to attend 2nd, 4th and 6th semester classes. The two
situations are different. LL.B. in a professional course and
attendance is mandated and as per rules is compulsory.
5. However, during the course of the hearing learned
counsel for the petitioners, had submitted that the students in the
first semester will have to take re-admission i.e. have to appear
in the entrance examination and only on selection will be
enrolled. In other words, the said students will lose their
admission. Learned counsel for the petitioners prays for
adjournment for today as he would like to amend the writ
petition and challenge the aforesaid stipulation in the rules
annexed as Annexure P4. We note that specific ground in this
regard has not been raised in the writ petition.
6. Another contention raised by the petitioners is that some
of the students have managed attendance. It is open to the
petitioners to highlight the said cases to the authorities who
would then examine the issue raised and in case some students
have managed attendance, appropriate action in accordance
with law would be taken. Article 14 is a positive and cannot be
used in a negative manner as suggested by learned counsel for
the petitioners.
7. In view of the aforesaid position, we are not inclined to
pass any interim order.
8. In the meanwhile, the respondent to file the affidavit
within 3 weeks stating aforesaid facts stated orally today in the
Court.
9. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed within three weeks
thereafter.
10. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioners, relist
on 5th February, 2018.
11. Copy of the order be given dasti under signature of the
Court Master."
6. We are informed that this order was carried in appeal before the Apex
Court, however, the petitioners were not successful. Since the earlier
Bench, which was ceased of the matter had declined to hear the
matter, as an application has been filed by one of the petitioners for
the matter to be transferred, this matter was marked before us on
20.03.2018. Post 20.03.2018, this matter has been heard on six
occasions and every effort was made to allow inspection of the
original records regarding attendance of the petitioners and those
students, who according to petitioners have been favoured.
7. The main grievance of the petitioners is that their attendance has not
been marked properly. Strong reliance is placed on the copy of FIR,
which has been placed on record to show that there was a theft of the
C.P.U., which contained the entire attendance record of the students
including the petitioners herein and thus the attendance so marked
does not correctly reflect the dates when the petitioners had actually
attended the classes.
8. Today, learned counsel for the petitioners including petitioner no.1,
submit that they wish to make a representation to the Dean (faculty of
law) and seek a direction to the Dean (faculty of law) not only to
consider the representation expeditiously but also favourably, having
regard to the career of these 17 students.
9. Counsel for the petitioners at this stage does not wish to press this
petition but seeks leave to make a representation to the Dean (faculty
of law) and a direction that the representation may be disposed of
expeditiously having regard to the age, the acute hardship including
the financial hardship faced by the students.
10. Dr. Sharma, counsel for the petitioners also submits that the Dean has
discretion to condone the attendance upto 15 days in a semester as per
rules, which is denied by Mr. Rupal, learned counsel for the
University of Delhi.
11. We have noted the submissions made before us in detail. Should a
representation be made by the petitioners, the same would be decided
by the Dean (faculty of law) within one week. We hope that the Dean
(faculty of law) would consider the representation sympathetically.
12. Keeping the fact which we have noted above, the writ petition, as
prayed, is disposed of in above terms.
13. Copy of order be given Dasti to the parties under signature of the
Court Master, as prayed.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.
MAY 01, 2018/ck
