ARVIND GUPTA Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition challenges theaction of the respondent University in not having permilted the petitioner to take sixth semester of the LL.B. Examination because of the shortage of the attendance inlectures. Chapter II of Ordinance V of University ofDelhi, Vol. I Calendar (to be called the Calendar) provides for various courses of study including the Bachelorof Laws (LL.B). Ordinance VII (2) lays down the condition for admission to examinations and provides that nomember of the University shall be admitted to any examination for a post-graduate degree unless he has pursueda regular course of study as hereinafter prescribed fornot less than two academic years. "The candidates forthe various examinations are required to pursue regularcourse of study as indicated by sub-clause (3) of Ordinance VII. LL.B. has been prescribed three academicyears (six terms). Clause 8 (a) of Ordinance VII furtherlays down that in case of students studying for LL.B.Degree Examination, no student shall be deemed to havepursued a regular course of study unless he has atlendedatleast two-thirds of the total number of lectures deliveredin each year ......... .held during the academic year inwhich he has been admitted as a regular student of theFaculty. There is exception in the proviso which providesthat the Dean may permit a student of the 2nd or the 4thterm to take the examination if he is short by not morethan 10 per cent of the total number of lectures deliveredincluding tutorials etc. during the 1st or the 2nd year ofthe course. However, such a student shall have to makeup the deficiency in attendance of the previous year in thenext following year in which he is admitted failing which heshall not be deemed to have fulfilled the attendance requirement of the year. The petitioner at the end of the IVsemester was short in attendance of (20) lectures. Apparently these were less than 10 per cent of the total numberof lectures delivered and he was, therefore permitted totake the 4th semester examination subject to his giving anundertaking to complete the deficiency in the fifth semester.At the end of the fifth semester, the petitioner was still shortof attendance in lectures, inasmuch as he had attendedonly 24 out of 101 lectures instead of 66. But he was notdetained because of the rule requiring the counting ofattendance for the entire academic year, which in this casewas to be of 3rd year (5th and 6th terms combined). However, when the time for examination for sixth semestercame, the petitioner was, it is the common case, after givingthe benefit of medical certificate, short by 29 lectures of atotal of 5th and 6th semester combined apart from theshortage of 20 lectures carried forward from the end of 2ndyear, thus making a total shortage of 49 lectures. Of courseit is common case that the petitioner had attended morethan 2/3rd of lectures if only lectures of 6th term alonewere counted. The University, however, in view of thisposition refused to send his name for examination becausebe was deemed not to have pursued the regular course ofstudy, inasmuch as he had not attended 2/3rd of lecturesduring the academic year i.e. 3rd year, which means 5thand 6th terms'. It is at that stage that this petition wasfiled and we permitted the petitioner to take the examination for the 6th term subject to the decision of the mainwrit petition. The result was, of course, directed to bewithheld. The petition is now for final disposal before us.

(2.) . The stand of the University is that the petitioner hasto take his 6th term examination in April, 1981 but he mustattend requisite lecture in 5th, and 6th terms in the currentyear. It is, of course, conceded that the petitioner's resultof 5th semester will not be cancelled and he will retain thebenefit of his successful passing. This stand is consistentwith the position as found in Appendix II of the Ordinancerelating to Bachelor of Laws to be found in the Instructionsto applicant in Bulletin of Information for 1977-78 ofCampus Law Centre, page 14 at page 16 where in para 9it is laid down that when a student. .... .has been detainedfor shortage of attendance, the result of any examinationtaken by him at the end of First, Third and Fifth terms ofthe academic year, shall not be cancelled. This will at nostage, relieve the student of his obligation to put in therequisite attendance as per rules. The case of the University, therefore, is that in terms of Ordinance VII(1) astudent cannot be admitted to the examination for a degreeunless he has pursued a regular course of study. The requirement, according to the University is two-fold (a) ofpassing the examination at the end of each semester and(b) of having attended at least two-thirds of total numberof lectures delivered during the academic year.

(3.) . Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, inorder to challenge the decision attacks the base and, therefore, challenges the nexus or the relevance of the requirement of the rules of University inrequiring the student likethe. petitioner to attend requisite lectures of the fifth term(when the said examination cannot be cancelled) and alsoin detaining the petitioner at the end of the sixth term eventhough he has attended more than two-third of lectures ofthe sixth semester separately. Mr. Gupta in that connection referred us to Ordinance X(10)(i) which permits theVice-Chancellor to cancel the result of any candidate within four months of the publication thereof if he is satisfiedthat the candidate was ineligible to take the examination onaccount of shortage of attendance, but was permitted to doso by some mistake, but only that much action shall requirethe confirmation of the Academic Council. Frankly we donot see how this clause has any relevance. Had in thepresent case the petitioner been permitted to take examination of 6th term notwithstanding the shortage of lecturesand then further four months had expired from the publication of the result, it may not have been possible to cancel the result of such examination. In the present case,however, the University committed no mistake because itstopped the petitioner from taking the examination of thesixth semester on the ground of shortage of lectures. Theexamination of the 6th term was given under the ordersof this Court. So the benefit of Order X(10)(1) cannotbe invoked by the petitioner in the present case.