Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 3102
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
AYUSHI SETHI & ORS. – PETITIONERS
Versus
DELHI UNIVERSITY & ANR. – RESPONDENTS
W.P.(C) 4801 OF 2017 & C.M. No.23005 OF 2017
Decided On : 25-08-2017
For the Petitioner: Dr. Ashutosh and Ms Urmi, Advs.
For the Respondents: Mr Mohinder J.S. Rupal and Mr Prang Newmai, Advs. for DU Ms Beenashaw N. Soni, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Ordinance VII (2) of the University of Delhi's regulations, emphasizing the discretion of the Principal to permit students to appear in examinations despite attendance deficiencies.
Headnote:
Attendance - University Regulations - Ordinance VII (2) - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed Ordinance VII (2) of the University of Delhi, which sets out the attendance rules for semester-based undergraduate programs. The court specifically focused on the provisions related to attendance requirements and the discretion of the Principal of the college to allow students to appear in examinations despite not fulfilling the attendance requirements. The court interpreted and applied the provisions of the ordinance to determine the petitioners' eligibility for promotion to the next semester.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, students of a college affiliated to Delhi University, sought relief after being denied admit cards for an examination due to alleged attendance shortage. They argued that their attendance for a specific course had been incorrectly recorded, and they had been unfairly treated compared to other students.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners' attendance issue was not adequately addressed by the college, and the college's actions were perceived as harsh and unfair. The court emphasized the discretion of the Principal to permit students to appear in examinations despite attendance deficiencies and directed the college to allow the petitioners to be promoted to the next semester upon providing an undertaking to make up the attendance shortfall.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners' attendance issue warranted relief under Ordinance VII (2) of the University of Delhi's regulations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the discretion of the Principal to allow students to appear in examinations despite attendance deficiencies should be exercised fairly and justly. It emphasized the importance of considering the circumstances of each case and directed the college to permit the petitioners to be promoted to the next semester upon providing an undertaking to make up the attendance shortfall.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the college was directed to permit the petitioners to be promoted to the next semester upon providing an undertaking to make up the attendance shortfall.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
1. The present petition has been filed by the seven petitioners. The prayers made in the petition read as under:-
(i) a Writ of Mandamus and/or any other Writ, order, and/or direction in the nature thereof may kindly be issued in the matter, thereby directing the respondents to allow the students to appear in the examination held on 27.05.2017 at 3 pm; and/or
(ii) a Writ of Mandamus and/or any other Writ, order and/or direction in the nature thereof may kindly be issued in the matter, thereby directing the respondents to promote the petitioners to the next semester, so that they may appear in the supplementary examination of fourth semester along with the examination of sixth semester; and/or
(iii) any other order, as may be deemed fit and proper, under the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.”
2. On 26.05.2017 this Court had considered the rival submissions of the parties; petitioner no 4 and petitioner no 7 namely Divya Gupta and Vinay Varma were permitted to sit in the examination of “Generic Elective” which was to be held on 27.05.2017. That direction stands complied with.
3. Record shows that the aforenoted petitioners are studying in the Deen Dayal Upadhyaya College (here-in-after referred to as ‘respondent No.2’). They were pursuing a B.Com (Hons.) course from the said college. The college is affiliated to respondent no. 1 (Delhi University). The course is a 3 year course divided into six semesters. All the students are presently in the II year. Petitioners had successfully completed their 3rd semester and were to appear in the examination of 4th semester which was scheduled between 09.05.2017 to 27.05.2017. Admit cards had to be issued to them on 08.05.2017. The petitioners did not know that there was any shortage of attendance on their part.
4. On 05.05.2017 the management of the college had displayed a list of 184 students who were detained due to shortage of attendance. Their attendance was allegedly less than 40%. As per the University guidelines students securing 66.66% attendance were alone eligible to sit for the examination. However, the students securing upto 40% attendance were considered by the college for the purpose of their eligibility to appear in the examination on the basis of their respective medical certificates or other circumstances like participation in extra curricular activities and sports etc. That out of list of 184 students, 70 were left out; their attendance was less than 26.7%. The medical certificates and other grounds including participation in extra curricular activities did not apply to those students whose attendance was less than 26.7%.
5. Submission is that the petitioners in the month of January 2017 had opted for the course Entrepreneurship/Cyber Law by giving their option; this was through E-filing; if their attendance for this course of “Entrepreneurship/Cyber Law” is calculated, the attendance of all the petitioners would be more than 26.7% which was the cut off percentage set by the college. The Principal of the college however did not accept the attendance of the petitioners for those 18 days (in the month of January 2017) inspite of the fact that all the afore noted petitioners had attended the said classes. The concerned teacher who was taking the classes for the said subject had inadvertently not passed on that attendance record to the concerned authority as a result of which the petitioners had been denied their admit cards. In fact the concerned teacher had even admitted her mistake in writing to the effect that she had not passed on this attendance chart of said afore noted petitioners to the concerned authorities.
6. The petitioners were kept in the dark. They were time and again informed that their matter was being considered favorably by the authorities. On 18.05.2017 the Principal of the college gave an option to the petitioners and advised them to procure medical certifi
