KIRAN KUMARI Vs. DELHI UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question that falls for consideration in this writ petition is whether the respondent university was justified in denying permission to the petitioners to appear in the 1st Semester LLB examination on the ground of shortage of lectures delivered during that course and whether the rule that restricts the power to condone such shortage is legally valid. An answer to that question is made easy by the pronouncements of the Supreme Court as to the content of the course and the importance of attendance for a successful completion thereof. We may, therefore, directly refer to the said pronouncements at the very outset.

(2.) IN Baldev Raj Sharma v. Bar Council of India and Others 1989 Supp (2)SCC 91, while interpreting the provisions of the Advocates Act and the Bar council of India Rules, the Supreme Court declared that there was a material difference between a course of study pursued as a regular student and that pursued as a private candidate. The Court noted that the policy underlying the bar Council Rules lays great emphasis on regular attendance at the law classes and observed :

(3.) THE above position was reiterated by their Lordships in Bar Council of india and Anr. v. Aparna Basu Mallick and Others (1994) 2 SCC 102, where the court rejected the contention that Rule 1 (1) (c) was ultra vires of Section 7 (1), section 24 (1) (c) (iii) or Section 49 (1) (d ). Relying upon its decision in Baldev raj Sharma's case (supra), the Court held that the requirements of Rule 1 (1) (c)to be amplifying the requirements of the relevant provisions of the Act. The question of vires of the said rules vis-a-vis the provisions of the Act stood settled in favour of the validity of the Rule, observed the Court. The following passage is in this regard apposite :