ANANYA BANSAL Vs. DELHI UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal has been preferred under Clause X of Letters Patent assailing the judgement dtd. 11/2/2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 263/2023 titled "Ananya Bansal vs. Delhi University & Ors.", whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed on behalf of the appellant seeking permission to appear in the examination of IIIrd Semester of LLB.

(2.) Appellant claims to be presently enrolled as student in the IIIrd Semester at the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, in Bachelors of Laws (L.L.B). The respondent no.2 released a provisional list of detainees on 22/12/2024, notifying all the students who were unable to meet the minimum attendance criteria set by the college authorities. The appellant's name was not in the provisional list of detainees, whereas, the final list published by the respondent on 4/1/2025 had the name of the appellant and therefore she was not issued the admit card for the concerned semester exams. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed the underlying writ petition seeking permission to appear in the examination and also sought removal of her name from the list of detainees. However, the learned Single Judge dismissed the underlying writ petition of similarly situated students including the appellant.

(3.) Mr. Pramod Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has addressed the same arguments which were submitted before the learned Single Judge. The contention is that the appellant was never informed of shortfall/shortage of her attendance by the faculty of law, which according to him, was an obligation of the respondent/university. According to learned counsel, the name of the appellant, having not figured in the provisional list of detainees brought out on 22/12/2024, assured her that her attendance was of the requisite percentage stipulated by the university. Subsequently, upon discovering that the appellant's fee had not been paid, the appellant rectified the situation when the respondent/university reopened the fee portal. He submits that it was then that the appellant was informed orally that she had been provisionally detained and was required to take remedial classes.