Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.
Deepak Rajashekhar Tongli - Petitioner
Versus
Rashtriya Raksha University - Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 11774 of 2022
Decided On : 12-12-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Attendance Policy as Bar Council of India Legal Education Rules, 2020 - Bar Council of India Legal Education (Post Graduate, Doctoral, Executive, Vocational, Clinical and other Continuing Education) Rules, 2020 - Rule 10, (2) - Debarring for appearing in end-term examination - Minimum attendance - Petitioner has prayed for directing respondent to rescind its decision of debarring petitioner for appearing in end-term examination as per emails - Prayed to allow petitioner to appear for end-term examination – Held, Minimum attendance which a student is required to attain is 60% and admittedly petitioner has not achieved such mandatory attendance of 60% qua two subjects - When petitioner has not achieved mandatory attendance, reliance placed by learned advocate for petitioner on attendance policy that status report on attendance was not notified twice is of no consequence as petitioner was aware about not attending classes - It is pertinent to note that petitioner was permitted to appear in examination of three subjects where he was found to have attended courses even in hybrid manner permitted by University for more than 60% times - Therefore, approach of respondent can be said to be equitable approach permitting petitioner to avail benefit of appearing in examination of three subjects where he has already attended for more than 60% which is minimum attendance after all relaxation and hence, petitioner is rightly not permitted to appear in examination of two subjects by respondent - Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for directing the respondent to rescind its decision of debarring the petitioner for appearing in the end-term examination as per emails dated 20.06.2022 and 23.06.2022. It was further prayed to allow the petitioner to appear for the end-term examination which was scheduled to commence from 29.06.2022.
2. This Court passed the following order on 28.06.2022 permitting the petitioner to appear in the end-term examination which was scheduled to be commenced from 29.06.2022 without creating any equity in favour of the petitioner and further directed that the result of the petitioner would not be declared during the pendency of the petition :
2. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the decision to debar the petitioner from appearing in the end-term examinations on a purported claim of low attendance. Mr. Joshi, learned advocate submitted that the petitioner was informed of the present decision with less than two weeks to the end-semester examinations, which are scheduled to be commenced on 29.06.2022.
2.1 Mr. Joshi, learned advocate submitted that the said decision is unfair, arbitrary and clearly fails to comply all the Attendance Policy as Bar Council of India Legal Education Rules, 2020 and fails to account for the petitioner’s request of exemption on serious medical grounds. Mr. Joshi, learned advocate submitted that the petitioner is pursuing LL.M. from the respondent University and currently in his second and last semester and the petitioner secured 69% in his first semester.
2.2 Mr. Joshi, learned advocate placed reliance on the communication dated 20.06.2022 and communication dated 23.06.2022, which are duly produced at Page 19 and 20, respectively.
3. From the communication dated 23.06.2022, it appears that the committee held that “(i) the petitioner shall not be eligible to appear in two subjects (LL.M. CMSL & G) i.e. Paper 202 and 203 on account of attendance shortfall below 75%, (ii) the petitioner is allowed to appear in other three subjects, (LL.M. CMSL & G) Paper 201 and 204 (online subjects) and 205 (Dissertation), (iii) Committee has further decided that the petitioner may appear in Paper 202 and 203 in next academic year 2022-23 (2nd Semester) provided the candidate fulfills the other requisite criteria”.
4. Issue notice making it returnable on 14.07.2022.
5. In the meantime, the petitioner be permitted to appear in the end-term examinations, which are scheduled to commence from 29.06.2022 without creating any equity in favour of the petitioner and it is further directed that the result of the petitioner shall not be declared pending present petition.
Direct service is permitted TODAY.”
3. The brief facts of the case are as under :
3.1 The petitioner was a student pursuing LL.M. course from the respondent-University. On 19.09.2021, the respondent-University informed to all the prospective students including the petitioner who had secured admission to join virtual orientation programme on 20.09.2021 in the second semester of LL.M. Course.
3.2 The respondent thereafter issued the information circular dated 20.11.2021 stating that the classes for the first semester would be conducted via hybrid mode between 01.12.2021 and 10.12.2021 and thereafter, only in physical mode from 13.12.2021. The students were asked to report on campus with relevant documents.
3.3 On 03.12.2021, the respondent announced re-opening its campus and asked students to reach campus by 13.12.2021. The petitioner, in response, informed the date of his arrival with the respondent-Institute. Thereafter, vide notification dated 07.01.2022, a decision was taken by the respondent to conduct all its classes online with immediate effect till further orders. A time-table for Semester-I for online class with a link for the same was published.
3.4 By Email dated 18.02.2022 all
The adherence to minimum attendance requirements is essential in university regulations, and non-compliance undermines eligibility to sit for examinations.
The judgment establishes the principle that students must meet minimum attendance requirements and may only be exempted from them under specific conditions as provided by the relevant legal provision....
The court established that accurate attendance records are essential for fair examination eligibility, reinforcing the right to education and due process.
Mandatory attendance regulations must be uniformly enforced, and compassion cannot override statutory requirements. Claims of discriminatory treatment require substantial evidence to succeed.
Legal education standards must be upheld, allowing for exceptions in legitimate medical cases, while reevaluating rigid attendance policies for the welfare of students.
Strict attendance requirements upheld; condonation requires Syndicate approval under university statutes, not court intervention without proper pleadings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
