Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 2537
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Hima Kohli, Asha Menon, JJ.
Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Naincy Sagar and Another – Respondents
LPA 713 of 2019 and C.M. APPL.48802-48804 of 2019 with LPA 717 of 2019 and C.M. APPL.49163-49165 of 2019
Decided On : 19-11-2019
For the Appellant :Ms. Maninder Acharya, ASG with Ms. Ekta Sikri, Mr. Saket Sikri, Mr. Ajaypal Singh, Mr. Vikalp Mudgal, Mr. Jasbir Bidhuri, Mr. Viplav Acharya and Mr. Arun Sanwal, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Raj Kamal and Mr. Aseem Atwal, Advocates.
Point of Law: while interpreting a statute, the assumption is that it is a designed to be workable. A construction that results in defeating the plain and clear intent of the legislature ought to be rejected by the courts even though there may be some inexactitude in the language used.
Headnote:
Legal Education, Rules 2008 - Rule 12- Law Degree – Professional Studies – Attendance – Shortage of – Promotion – Promotion to the next semester semester based on the credits obtained by them during the academic year 2018-19 – Maintaining standard of legal education and for recognition of degrees in law for enrolment as an advocate – Interpretation of clauses -
Finding of the Court:
Once Clause 9 prescribes that a student must have a minimum attendance of 75% in the aggregate of all the courses taken together in a semester with a margin of 5% afforded to him in exceptional circumstances, which would bring down the minimum attendance to 70% in a semester and the said Clause goes on to declare that under no condition would a student, who has less than70% aggregate attendance in a semester, be permitted to appear in the semester term end examination, there can be no manner of doubt that the aforesaid condition must be satisfied by a student for seeking promotion to the next academic year. The said condition is over and above the condition prescribed in Clause 11.3 (v)(i) and(ii) and both the conditions must be met – attendance of a minimum percentage of classes prescribed in professional courses like B.A. LL.B/B.B.A. LL.B is non-negotiable. There is no substitute for class room teaching. Conducting classes in the institutions, is a dynamic system which keeps evolving over time. It can be said with certainty that reading books prescribed in the syllabus/curriculum alone can never be enough for imparting and imbibing knowledge, which is always a two way street. Interactive sessions of the students with their teachers during the classes has a deep and lasting effect on their intellectual growth. The cut and thrust of open house debates and discussions, questions and answers posed by the students to the teachers conducting classes and tutorials is a precursor to the experience needed by a law student when he ultimately prepares a brief and appears in Court to advance arguments. The intellect of a student evolves in this process and helps in honing his skills and attaining a higher standard of excellence, which is the underlying object of acquiring a professional degree like law. It is this discourse with their teachers and peers that is engrained forever in the heart of every student as the most cherished and enduring memory of student life. Understanding the doctrines and principles of law and going through the case law prescribed in the curriculum by referring to law books and journals in a routine manner, has its own importance but that goes hand-in-hand with the knowledge that is acquired by a student on attending classes.
Result: Appeals allowed
JUDGMENT :
Hima Kohli, J.
The appellant, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (in short "GGSIPU") has filed the present appeal being aggrieved by the common judgment dated 31.10.2019, passed by the learned Single Judge, allowing two writ petitions, one filed by Naincy Sagar [W.P. (C) 10909/2019] and the other by Prateek Solanki [W.P. (C) 8697/2019], both enrolled in the B.A. LL.B/B.B.A.LL.B five years integrated course offered by the respondent No.2/Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies (in short "VIPS"), with a common prayer that they be promoted to the next semester, i.e. the 9th semester, based on the credits obtained by them during the academic year 2018-19 and thereafter, be permitted to appear for the 8th semester end term examinations in the next even semester, i.e. the 10th semester, as supplementary papers.
2. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has allowed both the writ petitions with the following directions:-
"Conclusion:-
21. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the captioned petitions are disposed of with the following directions :-
i. The respondents will promote the petitioners to the 9th semester and in this behalf make suitable adjustments in the form of extra classes, if found necessary.
ii. The respondents will inform the petitioners as to how they can take extra classes for the 8th semester and when they can sit for the exam qua the said semester.
iii. The petitioners will file undertaking in the form of an affidavit with the Principal, VIPS to the effect that they will attend the stipulated classes."
3. Before proceeding to deal with the arguments advanced by both sides, it is necessary to recapitulate the necessary facts that have led both the respondents/students approach the court for relief. The respondents/students are pursuing a five year integrated LL.B course in the respondent No.2/VIPS. They had joined the said course in the academic year 2015-16. Each academic year comprises of two semesters. In each semester, the students are required to take examinations in six papers. Every paper has a credit rating of five. After clearing the first three academic years of the subject course, in other words, passing the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th semesters, they were promoted to the fourth academic year that commenced in July, 2018 and comprises of the 7th and 8th semesters. The respondents cleared the 7th semester but they were detained in the 8th semester that commenced on 07.1.2019 and concluded on 31.5.2019. The reason for their detention in terms of a notice dated 22.4.2019, issued by the respondent No.2/VIPS was failure on their part to achieve the minimum attendance. Pertinently, the notice dated 22.4.2019, mentions the names of 20 other students, who were detained along-with the respondents herein due to shortage of attendance. The fallout of the said decision taken by the appellant/GGSIPU is that the respondents/students will not be promoted to the 9th semester and it would be deemed that they have taken an academic break for the said year with permission to sit for the examination of the 8th semester with the next batch for the academic year and then go on to complete the five year integrated course of B.A. LL.B/B.B.A. LL.B. in a period of six years.
4. Now a glance at the reason for issuance of the detention order. Records reveal that Naincy's attendance had fallen short because she suffered a fracture in her right arm due to an accident that took place on 8.2.2019, due to which she had to undergo a surgery. When the 8th semester end term examination was to take place on 29.4.2019, Naincy was not permitted to sit for the said examination and she was informed by the respondent No.2/VIPS that she shall be re-admitted in the regular batch of the academic year with the next batch and will be permitted to repeat the 8th semester of the fourth academic year, 2019-20. The results of the 8th semester end term examination were declared by the appellant/GGSIPU on 30.7.2019. Prior thereto,
