MADHUSHREE MAITRA AND ORS Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule D.B. Pleadings are complete. With the consent of the counsels for the parties, the writ petition is set down for final hearing and disposal.

(2.) 17 petitioners have filed the present writ petition being aggrieved by the action of the University for not promoting them to the next semester on account of shortage of attendance. We may note that the 17 students pertain to different law centres and pertain to different semesters. 9 petitioners are in the first semester, 6 petitioners are in third semesters and 2 petitioners are in fifth semester.

(3.) Dr. Sarabjit Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is a prerequisite of achieving 70% attendance in aggregate and 66% attendance in each subject for appearing in the examination. The attendance of each semester is considered for allowing or debarring a student. The present petitioners have been debarred from appearing in the current semesters. Learned counsel for the petitioners and, petitioner no.1, who has appeared in person, submit that the attendance of the petitioners have not been correctly reflected in the record of the University. It is also submitted that the University did not have the necessary record as a C.P.U., which contained the entire attendance record of the students was stolen. A strong reliance is placed on the copy of FIR, which has been placed on record. It is next contended that the University has not acted in a fair and just manner as many students have been granted attendance of the class they did not attend, however, the present petitioners are faced with discrimination at the hands of the University. It has also been contended before us that in case the petitioners are not permitted to appear in their respective examinations, they will be put to great hardship, more particularly, 9 students of the first semester, who would have to appear again in the entrance test and on account of growing competition, there may be a possibility of their not being able to succeed in seeking fresh admission. Learned counsel for the petitioners and petitioner no.1 have also made serious efforts to bring to the notice of the Court how extra attendance has been granted to some students while the petitioners have been discriminated.