AVANIJA SUNDARAMURTI Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises in this petition is whether the attendance is to be counted from the date of commencement of classes or from the date of admission of a student to the first semester of the LLB course offered by the Law Faculty of Delhi University.

(2.) The facts are that the petitioner appeared in the entrance examination for admission to the said course. The said entrance examination for the academic sessions 2005-2006 was held by the Law Faculty some time in June, 2005. The petitioner ranked 35th in the order of merit in the said entrance examination. Counselling for the same was concluded on 22.7.2005. The petitioner has been called for counselling because of her position in the order on merit. Unfortunately, the result of her BA (Honours) in Journalism had not been declared till then. The said examination was also conducted by the Delhi University. On 22.7.2005, at the time of counselling, she was unable to produce her mark sheet/provisional certificate as the results had not been declared. As a result of which she did not secure admission at that point of time. Apparently, her result was declared on 1.8.2005. When she approached the Law Faculty after the declaration of her results, because she had the merit, the University ultimately granted her admission on 20.9.2005. The lectures for the first semester commenced on 1.8.2005.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that she could not attend any lecture between 1.8.2005 to 20.9.2005 because she was not admitted to the said course. It is her case that after she was admitted, she had attended virtually 100% of the lectures offered. It is an admitted position that, as per her attendance record, she would have about 45% attendance in respect of the total number of lectures delivered between 1.8.2005 and the conclusion of the first semester. It is also an admitted position that if the lectures delivered between 1.8.2005 to 20.9.2005 are excluded then the petitioner would have more than 66% attendance in the lectures in the aggregate for the period 20.9.2005 till the conclusion of the first semester. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the period between 1.8.2005 to 20.9.2005 ought to be excluded in computing the attendance of the petitioner. This writ petition has proceeded on the assumption that the attendance requirement of 66% is to be construed in the context of the lectures delivered in the first semester alone. The issue whether the attendance is to be taken semester wise or year wise is the subject matter of other writ petitions which we need not to go into as this petition can be disposed of on the assumption that the requirement of attendance is semester-wise.