Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 4822
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, A.K. CHAWLA, JJ.
Sahil Singh Ravish - Appellant
Versus
University Of Delhi & Ors. - Respondents
LPA 788 of 2017
Decided On : 19-12-2017
For the Respondents:Mr. Amit Bansal, Advocates, Mr. T. Singhdev with Ms. Puja Sarkar and Mr. Tarun Verma, Advocates, Mr. Preet Pal Singh with Ms. Priyam Mehta, Advocates for Bar Council of India.
Strict compliance with mandatory attendance rules is required, and previous judgments and claims of duress may not be relevant in such cases.
Headnote:
Attendance Rule - University Result Withheld - Rule 8(a) - Sukriti Upadhyay vs. University of Delhi, 2010 (8) AD (Del) 385, S.N. Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.: 2003 IV AD (Del) 378, Vandana Khandari vs. University of Delhi, [WP(C) 8302/2009] - Rule 8(a)
Fact of the Case:
The Appellant's university withheld his results due to insufficient attendance, leading to a petition rejection by the Single Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Appellant's challenge to the result withholding was not valid, as the mandatory nature of Rule 8(a) required a minimum 70% attendance in each course, and the Appellant did not meet this requirement.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Appellant's insufficient attendance justified the university's decision to withhold his results.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the mandatory nature of Rule 8(a) required strict compliance and that the Appellant's reliance on previous judgments and the question of duress were irrelevant.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the withholding of the results was deemed legal, but the university was ordered to return the collected fee to the Appellant.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
CM No.45392/2017 (exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
LPA 788/2017 & CM No.45391/2017 (stay)
1. The Appellant is aggrieved by an order of the learned Single Judge rejecting his petition. The Respondent/University had by an order withheld the result, contending that the Appellant/Petitioner did not have the requisite minimum attendance of 70% of the lectures in each of the courses as stipulated in Attendance Rule 8(a) framed under this Ordinance.
2. The Appellant had been initially issued with the Admit Card for the examination for the second semester which he appeared in. The results were later withheld.
3. The Appellant contends that the findings of the learned Single Judge that are premised upon the judgment in Sukriti Upadhyay vs. University of Delhi, 2010 (8) AD (Del) 385, are erroneous. It is pointed out that an earlier decision in S.N. Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.: 2003 IV AD (Del) 378, clearly rules that despite shortage of attendance in a given subject or subjects, it is open to the concerned students to appear in the paper for which there is no shortage of attendance. The Appellant, who is a self-represented litigant, has also relied upon a learned Single Judge’s ruling in Vandana Khandari vs. University of Delhi, [WP(C) 8302/2009 decided on 30.04.2010].
4. The University points out that Sukriti Upadhyay (supra) is a later judgment which took note of the previous ruling in S.N. Singh (supra). It is also pointed out that the structure of phraseology of the Rules which existed at the time Sukriti Upadhyay (supra) was decided, are different from the existing Rules which were substituted sometime in 2008. It is further pointed out that when S.N. Singh (supra) was decided, the real position was entirely different. It is highlighted that the Appellant and a large number of other students had coerced the then Dean at the relevant point of time to issue the admit cards and, as a result, the Appellant was allowed to appear. When approval was sought from the Pro-Vice-Chancellor, ex-post facto, the same was denied.
5. The Appellant, however, points out in reply that the question of duress, etc. does not arise and relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sri Krishna vs. The Kurukshetra University, 1976 AIR 376.
6. The Rules as existing and applicable for the law course in Delhi University, at the time when Sukriti Upadhyay (supra) was decided, read as follows:-
“(8)(a) “The students shall be required to put in minimum attendance of 66% of the lectures on each of the subjects as also at the moot courts and practical training course.
Provided that in exceptional cases for reasons to be recorded and communicated to the Bar Council of India, the Dean of the Faculty of Law/Professor-in-Charge of the Law Centre may condone attendance short of those required by this Rule, if the student had attended 66% of the lectures in the aggregate for the semester examinations.
Provided further that no person shall be deemed to have satisfied the required conditions in respect of his instructions unless, in addition to the requirement regarding attendance and other conditions, he has appeared and satisfied by his performance the Professor-in-Charge of the Law Centre in such test, written and/or oral, as may be held by him in his discretion. The Professor-in-Charge shall have, and shall be deemed always to have had, the power to detain a student in the same class in which he has been studying, or not to send him up for the University Examination, in case he did not appear at the tests aforesaid or his performance was not satisfactory.
The Professor-in-Charge of the Law Centre shall have power to strike off the name of a student who is grossly irregular in attendance inspite of warning, or, when the absence of the student is for such a long period that he cannot put in requisite percentage of attendance.
(b) In the case of students studying for the LL.M. Part I Examination, no student shall be d
