$~38 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 740/2025 HARSH MEENA & ORS. .....Appellants Through: Mr. Praveen Kumar, Mr. Rajnish Kumar, Mr. Umesh Kumar and Mr.

Tayibb Khan Salmani, Advocates versus UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Mohinder Rupal, Mr. Hardik Rupal and Ms. Aishwarya Malhotra, Advocates for University of Delhi.

Mr. Preet Pal Singh and Ms. Medha Navami, Advocates for BCI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

O R D E R

% 04.12.2025

1. Present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the interim order dated 29.11.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)18148/2025 titled “Harsh Meena & Ors. vs. University of Delhi & Ors.”, wherein the learned Single Judge denied the appellants permission to appear in the examination on account of shortage of attendance.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants states that while on one hand, learned Single Judge has allowed similarly situated students to sit for the III and V semesters examinations, insofar as the present appellants are concerned, such interim prayer has been refused. He states that since there is no dispute in respect of the similar situation in which the present appellants and those who have been allowed to sit for the examination, on the grounds of parity, the appellants may be permitted to sit for the III and V semesters examination commencing tomorrow i.e., 05.12.2025. He also relies upon the interim order passed in the writ petition filed by similarly situated students.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned order.

4. For the purpose of considering interim relief, we find it apposite to reproduce herein the relevant paragraphs of the impugned interim order. The same are under:-

“9. Mr. Rupal vehemently opposes the application and submits that Petitioners have not attended a single class in the III and V semesters, respectively and till the filing of this writ petition, no grievance was ever raised that Petitioners were wrongly prevented from attending classes. Petitioners were short of attendance in the previous semesters and were rightly detained from attending classes of the next semesters. The prayer for allocation of sections and permitting the Petitioners to attend classes of III and V semesters at this stage is highly belated and cannot be entertained considering that classes as also the cut-off date for filling examinations forms are over.

10. I find prima facie merit in the contention of Mr. Rupal. Admittedly, Petitioners were detained in the previous semesters owing to shortage of attendance. As per the narrative in the writ petition itself, academic calendar for III and V Semesters was released on 04.07.2025 and classes were to commence from 01.08.2025. Indisputably, Petitioners have not attended a single class of III and V semesters respectively till date and have filed this writ petition when the classes as also cut-off date for filling the examination forms are over. At this stage, Petitioners cannot be permitted to appear in examinations on the ground that no student can be detained for shortage of attendance, when not a single class was attended in the III and V Semesters, as the case may be, and Petitioners have woken up when the semesters are over. Even otherwise, one wonders how a law student would clear an examination without attending a single class for any subject in the curriculum!”

5. On a query by this Court, learned counsel could not offer any explanation as to why the appellants did not attend the classes of III and V semesters. All that is stated by the counsel for the appellants was that the respondent no.1/university authorities had promised that the inquiry committee would give its report and thereafter the respondent no.1/university would consider permitting them to attend classes. It would be pertinent to note that the detention order was passed on 24.05.2025, and the enquiry committee report dated 19.09.2025