Back
2012 Supreme(Del) 2135
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
Heena Bahal
Versus
University of Delhi & Others
LPA No. 795 of 2012 & C.M. Nos. 20255 (stay), 20257 of 2012
Decided On: 19-12-2012
For the Appellant:Akhil Sibbal, Pallavi Langar & Smirti Dutta, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Advocate for the University of Delhi R3, APS Ahluwalia, Sr. Advocate with S.S. Ahluwalia, Advocates.
Courts should not relax the norms of minimum attendance requirements unless empowered by specific rules, and challenges to attendance records cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction.
Headnote:
Attendance Rules - University Examination - Ordinance VII - [2(1), 9(a)(1)] - The court upheld the University's requirement of a minimum attendance of 66.66% in lectures and practicals separately in each subject for entitlement to take the examination. The court emphasized that the rules were mandated to ensure students attend classes for a minimum number of working days and that the courts should not relax the norms unless empowered by specific rules. The court also highlighted that challenges to attendance records cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was not allowed to appear in the 2nd Year final examinations in B.A. (Hons.), Economics due to a shortage of attendance. The appellant contested the accuracy of the attendance records and argued that she should be allowed to take the examination.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant did not meet the minimum attendance requirement of 66.66% and rejected the appellant's request to sit for the examination. The court emphasized that challenges to attendance records cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant's shortage of attendance justified her exclusion from the examination.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the University's requirement of a minimum attendance of 66.66% in lectures and practicals separately in each subject for entitlement to take the examination. The court emphasized that challenges to attendance records cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court upheld the University's decision to deny the appellant from appearing in the examination due to the shortage of attendance.
D. MURUGESAN, J
1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. The appellant was not allowed to appear in the 2nd Year final examinations in B.A. (Hons.), Economics on the ground that there was shortage of attendance. Having noticed that as per the prospectus requiring a minimum attendance of 66.66% in lectures and in tutorials/preceptorials/practicals separately in each subjects and the appellant did not have the said minimum attendance, the learned Judge rejected the request.
2. The prospectus relating to attendance rules reads thus:-
“All students are expected to attend classes regularly, University Rules requiring a minimum attendance of 66.66% both in lectures and in tutorials/preceptorials/practicals separately, held in each subject, failing which a student shall not be allowed to appear for the University Examinations.”
3. One more clause relating to the minimum attendance in the Ordinance VII may also be referred to:-
“2 (1) No person shall be deemed to have pursued a regular course of study unless the Principle of his College/ Head of the Department concerned in the case of candidates for the B.A. (Pass), B.A. (Vocational Studies), B.Com (Pass), B.Sc. (General), B.A. (Honours), B. Com (Honours), B.Sc. (Honours) Degrees, the Principal, School of Correspondence Courses and Continuing Education in the case of students registered with the School, and Head of the Department concerned in the case of candidates for any other Degree or Diploma or Certificate Examination is satisfied that the required conditions in respect of his instruction have been fulfilled.
(2) The required conditions shall not be deemed to have been satisfied in respect of the following degrees unless the candidate has attended not less than two-thirds of lectures and practicals, separately, delivered in his College or the University, as the case may be, for the course of study in each academic year.
(9)(a) Subject to the provisions of sub-clauses (b) and (c) (i) In the case of a student who is selected as a member of the N.C.C. to participate in the annual N.C.C. Camps or is deputed to undertake Civil Defence work and allied duties or in the case of a student who is enrolled in the National Service Scheme and is deputed to various public assignment by or with the approval of the Head of the institution concerned, or a student who is selected to participate in sports or other activities organized by the Inter University Board or in national or international fixtures in games and sports approved by the Vice-Chancellor, or a student who is required to represent the University at the Inter-University Youth Festival, or a student who is required to participate in periodical training in the Territorial Army, or a student who is deputed by the College to take part in Inter-College sports or fixtures, debates, seminars, symposia or social work projects, or a student who is required to represent the College concerned in debates and other extra-curricular activities held in other Universities or such other activities approved by the Vice-Chancellor, for this purpose, in calculating the total number of lectures etc. delivered in the College, or in the University, as the case may be, for his course of study in each academic year, the number of lectures etc., in each subject delivered, during the period of absence for that purpose shall not be taken into account. (c) The benefit of exclusion of lectures contemplated in categories (i) or (ii) of subclause (a) above, either separately or jointly, shall in no case exceed 1/3 of the total number of lectures delivered.”
4. The grievance of the appellant is that she was not allowed to appear in 2nd Year Final Examination. It is her contention that list of students being detained from appearing in the examinations held on 12.05.2012 did not mention the name of the appellant thereby indicating that she was eligible to take th
