Minimum attendance in professional courses is a strict requirement; total absence due to illness does not warrant waiver of attendance conditions.

JUDGMENT

D. N. Patel, Chief Justice (Oral)--Proceedings in the matter have been conducted through video conferencing.

CM APPL.19347/2020 (condonation of 237 days in preferring the appeal)

2. This application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 237 days in preferring the appeal. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and looking to the facts stated in this application, there are reasonable reasons for condonation of delay. We, therefore, condone the delay in preferring the appeal.

The application is allowed and disposed of.

LPA 209/2020 & CM APPL.19345/2020 (Stay)

3. Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 21st November, 2019 in W.P.(C) 12252/2019 (Annexure A-1 to the memo of this appeal) and order dated 29th January, 2020 (Annexure A-4 to the memo of this appeal) passed in Review Petition No.37/2020, the original petitioner has preferred the present Appeal.

4. The issue involved in this appeal concerns granting one time waiver of shortage of attendance in favour of the petitioner on medical grounds for First Semester LL.B. Degree Course in Delhi University.

5. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and looked into the facts and circumstances of the case. Appellant/petitioner was suffering from Tuberculosis when he was in his First Semester of LL.B. Degree Course in the respondent University. The First Semester of LL.B. Degree Course commenced from 1st September, 2019 and concluded on 25th November, 2019.

6. The minimum attendance requirement in LL.B. Course is 70%. It further appears from the facts of the case that because of the sickness of the appellant/petitioner, the attendance of the appellant in First Semester of LL.B. Degree Course, Delhi University is zero percent. No Rule or Regulation or any law has been brought to our notice which permits concession by condoning shortage of 100% attendance. The learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition has rightly held that in professional courses, requirement of attaining minimum of attendance is "non- negotiable". It is an undisputed position that the attendance of the appellant/petitioner in First Semester is NIL. The appellant seeks to appear in the First Semester examination, LL.B. Degree Course, without attending the classes and with zero percent attendance, which is impermissible in law. Attending classes and having minimum 70% attendance is a sine qua non to be eligible to appear in the examination. Since the appellant did not attend the classes at all, the Rules which permit waiver of attendance will also not inure to his advantage. These aspects of the matter have been correctly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bar Council of India v. Aparna Basu Mallick, (1994) 2 SCC 102 has held as under:

"14. .......

If the acquisition of a degree in law is essential for being qualified to be admitted as an advocate on a State roll, it is obvious that the Bar Council of India must have the authority to prescribe the standards of legal education to be observed by Universities in the country. On a conjoint reading of these provisions of the Act with Rule 1(1)(c) in Part IV of the Rules which prescribe the standards for legal education and recognition of degrees in law as well as admission as advocates, it is difficult to understand how one can say that the said Rule is inconsistent with any of the provisions of the Act. What Rule 1(1)(c) requires is that the course of study in law must be completed by regular