YOGESH BHATIA Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. By consent of counsel for the parties, and keeping in perspective the urgency of the grievances ventilated in these petitions, they have been heard for final disposal. All of them concern the circumstances in which a student may be excused for being short of attendance and permitted to appear in the relevant examination. Ordinance VII (Conditions of Admission to Examination) of the Delhi University and are reproduced for facility of reference:

(2.) . Chapter III of the Ordinances VII of the Delhi University namely, Conditions for Admission to Examinations. Rule 2 (1) states that - "no person shall be deemed to have pursued a regular course of study unless the Principal of his College/Head of Department ... is satisfied that the required conditions in respect of his instruction have been fulfilled". Sub-Rule (2) stipulates that the required conditions shall not be deemed to have been satisfied .... unless the candidate has attended not less than two-thirds of lectures and practicals ... in each academic year. Sub-rule (8) (a) of Rule 2 requires that - "in the case of students studying for the LL.B. Degree Examination, no student shall be deemed to have pursued a regular course of study unless he has attended at least two-thirds of the total number of lectures delivered in each year including tutorials, seminars and discussion classes held during the academic year in which he has been admitted as a regular student of the Faculty: provided, however, that the Dean, may for reasons to be recorded in writing, permit a student of the 2nd or the 4th Term to take the examination if he is short by not more than 10% of the total number of lectures delivered including tutorials, seminars and discussion classes held during the Ist or the 2nd year of the course, as the case may be. Such a student shall have to make up the deficiency in attendance of the previous year in the next following year in which he is admitted failing which he shall not be deemed to have fulfilled the attendance requirements of the year. ..." Sub-rules (9)(a)(ii), (b), (c ) and (d) of Rule 2 are of importance, which are reproduced below:

(3.) Before narrating and cogitating upon the facts of each petition I shall analyse the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the parties. The first judgment is dated 4.2.2002, delivered by my Learned Brother Justice S.K. Mahajan, in CW 5738/2001 entitled Neha Kalra and others v. University of Delhi. The Principal of the College had refused to condone the shortage of attendance and consequently had not permitted the student to appear in the Examination. In that case Mahajan J. clarified the scope of judicial review in such like matters and took pains to state that the Court would not substitute its own decision in place of the manner in which the discretion of the Authority concerned had been exercised unless it is manifest that the discretion has been exercised arbitrarily or in a malafide manner. The argument that once the representation is made by the student and a Medical Certificate is produced along with the same, the Principal must exclude the period mentioned in such Certificate from the total number of attendance of that particular year was turned down, and it was observed that the Principal was not bound to accept the representations of the Petitioners just because a medical certificate was attached with them. The writ petition was dismissed. CW 2292/2002 entitled Ms. Ambika Muttoo v. Lady Shri Ram College for Women was disposed of by my Learned Brother Justice Manmohan Sarin on April 17, 2002. In that case the Petitioner had approximately 43% attendance and she pleaded for the exercise of discretion in her favour by the Principal which permitted a student who had 40 per cent attendance to take the first year examination, subject to the candidate being required to make up the deficiency during the second year. The grounds set out by the Petitioner was that her elder sister had met with a road accident in Mauritius and had been kept in a body cast for a month. The stand of the College was that the Petitioner's attendance worked out only to 39.4% and , therefore, the shortfall could not be condoned at all. In passing it was observed that -