Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 1845
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, J.
Naincy Sagar - Appellant
Vs.
Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies And Another - Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 10909 of 2019, 8697 of 2019
Decided On : 31-10-2019
Raj Kamal, Adv., Aseem Atwal, Adv., Kartavya Batra, Adv., Rakesh Munjal, Adv., Annirudh Sharma, Adv., Nitisha Goyal, Adv., Ekta Sikri, Adv., Shashwat Sharma, Adv., Anita Sahani, Adv.
Students detained due to short attendance but obtaining at least 50% of total credits should be promoted to complete their academic program within the stipulated time.
Headnote:
Attendance - Promotion to Next Academic Year - Ordinance 11, Clause 9.1, 9.2, 11.3(v)(i), (ii) - The court discussed the interplay between Clause 9 and Clause 11.3(v)(i) and (ii) of Ordinance 11, emphasizing the importance of attendance and minimum credits for promotion. It highlighted the provisions for condonation of attendance deficit and the criteria for promotion to the next academic year, and concluded that students detained due to short attendance but obtaining at least 50% of total credits should be promoted to complete their academic program within the stipulated time.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought promotion to the 9th semester based on their credit score and the provisions of Ordinance 11, after being detained in the 8th semester due to short attendance. Naincy suffered a wrist injury, leading to detention, while Prateek's detention was related to his involvement in extracurricular activities.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the provisions of Ordinance 11 and BCI Rules, emphasizing the importance of attendance and minimum credits for promotion. It found that students detained due to short attendance but obtaining at least 50% of total credits should be promoted to complete their academic program within the stipulated time.
Issues: The court considered the interplay between Clause 9 and Clause 11.3(v)(i) and (ii) of Ordinance 11, the importance of attendance, and the consequences of detention due to short attendance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that students detained due to short attendance but obtaining at least 50% of total credits should be promoted to complete their academic program within the stipulated time, emphasizing the need for suitable adjustments and extra classes if necessary.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to promote the petitioners to the 9th semester, make suitable adjustments for extra classes if necessary, and inform the petitioners about taking extra classes for the 8th semester and sitting for the exam.
JUDGMENT :
Rajiv Shakdher, J.
Preface: -
1. These are two writ petitions in which a common prayer is made. The prayer made by the petitioners is, in effect, to direct respondent no.1 to promote them to the next semester i.e. the 9th semester based on their record qua academic session 2018-2019. The petitioners thus, seek permission to appear for the 8th semester end-term examination in the concurrent even semester i.e. the 10th semester. As to how and why the petitioners have come to this pass needs to be detailed out.
1.1. Before I do so, it would be necessary to indicate that the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.10909/2019 would be referred to as by her first name Naincy while the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.8697/2019 will be referred likewise by his first name i.e. Prateek.
1.2. Insofar as respondent no.1 i.e. Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies is concerned, it would be referred to as VIPS. Respondent no.2 i.e. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University would be referred to hereafter as the University. Wherever necessary, both Naincy and Prateek would be collectively referred to as petitioners and likewise, VIPS and the University, wherever necessary, would be collectively referred to as the respondents.
Backdrop: -
2. In 2015-2016, the petitioners sat for the Central Examination Test (in short "CET") conducted by the University qua B.A. LL.B./B.B.A. LL.B. integrated course. The petitioners qualified the CET and thus were admitted to VIPS which is affiliated to the University. The petitioners successfully sailed through the first three years of the B.A. LL.B./B.B.A. LL.B. course. They encountered difficulties in the 8th semester which pertains to the fourth academic year. It is important to note that in the 7th and 8th semesters of the fourth academic year, the petitioners, like other students, had to take exams in six papers in each semester. Each paper had a credit rating of five. The petitioners cleared all six papers in the 7th semester and thus obtained a total credit score of 30.
3. Insofar as the 8th semester was concerned, because the petitioners were detained, for reasons that I would advert to, their credit score was zero. Therefore, in sum, for the fourth academic year which consisted of 7 th and 8th semesters, out of a maximum credit score of 60, the petitioners had obtained a credit score of 30.
3.1. The petitioners, based on their credit score and the provisions of Clause 11.3(v)(i) of Conduct and Evaluation of Examinations for Programmes Leading to All Bachelor's/Master's Degrees and Under Graduate/Post Graduate Diploma following The Semester System of Examination (hereafter referred to as "Ordinance 11") seek promotion to the next academic year i.e. the fifth year which comprises the 9th and 10th semester.
4. The respondents, on the other hand, resist the plea of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners were detained in the 8th semester (which, as noted above, falls in the fourth academic year) on account of failure to achieve minimum attendance as provided in Clause 9.1 of Ordinance 11. In other words, the stand of the respondents is that the petitioners cannot be promoted to the 9th semester which, effectively means that they will not be able to complete their B.A. LL.B./B.B.A. LL.B. integrated course within five years as originally envisaged.
5. The moot question which arises for consideration is: What exactly is the interplay between Clause 9 of Ordinance 11 (which comprises subclauses 9.1 to 9.3) and Clause 11, 11.3(v)(i) and (ii)? Before I embark on this exercise of ascertaining the scope and ambit of aforementioned clauses of Ordinance 11, it may be relevant to touch upon the reasons for the detention of the petitioners in the 8th semester to lend a human face to a problem which has legal connotations and degrading ramifications for the petitioners.
6. Naincy and Prateek, as has been alluded to hereinabove, have been students who have successfully cleared the first seven semesters.
6.1. Naincy suffered an i
