The court affirmed that all classes, including Moot Court, must be included in attendance calculations, and the petitioner failed to meet the minimum attendance requirement.

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs;

a. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondent No.1 to permit the petitioner to write the examination of subjects mentioned in the table below, commencing from 27.08.2024 of the 10th semester LL.B Course, as per the timetable issued by the university on 8th August 2024.

b. To grant any such other relief or order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has not been permitted to take up the 10th semester LLB Course Examination on account of lack of attendance.

3. The submission in this regard by Sri.Trivikram., learned counsel for the petitioner is that;

3.1. In terms of the Regulations more particularly Regulation 13, though 70% attendance is compulsory, an exception is made that the student who has attended not less than 65% of the classes in each of the subject may be permitted to keep the term for reasons to be recorded in writing and to the satisfaction of the Principal of the college or the Dean of the faculty and as such there was a discretion vested with the college to permit the petitioner to keep the term with the average of 65% of attendance.

3.2. In this regard, he submits that insofar as Environmental Law is concerned, the petitioner has an attendance of 69.23%, Land Laws attendance of 62.86%, and White Collar Crimes attendance of 68.18%. If the average is taken, it is a little over 65%, and as such, the respondent-college principal could have passed necessary orders permitting the petitioner to keep the Term.

4. Sri.M.N.Uma Shankar., learned counsel for respondent No.2-College submits that apart from the aforesaid three subjects, the petitioner had to attend 22 classes of Moot Court which has not been attended, in its entirety and only eight classes were attended bringing the attendance to 36.36% and if average of all the four subjects is taken it is less than 65% and there is no discretion vested with the Principal or the Dean of faculty to permit the petitioner to keep the term since the attendance is less than 65%.

5. In reply thereto, Sri.Trivikarm., learned counsel for the petitioner would submits that;

5.1. The petitioner is not required to attend Moot Court classes, and attendance cannot be taken into consideration. In this regard, he relies upon the objective of the Clinical Course, namely Moot Court Exercise and Internship, and submits that there is no requirement for attendance mentioned in the said course overview.

5.2. In this regard he also relies on the email dated 27.7.2024 and submits that, if a student has successfully completed an internship and a certificate is issued by the employer in that regard on the employer's letterhead in such case 40% overall attendance would be sufficient and in this case the petitioner having more than 40% attendance, the petitioner's candidacy should be accepted.

5.3. The relevant portion of the said email is extracted hereunder for easy reference;

“Your attendance will be processed only on receiving the above documents to the satisfaction of the Placement Officer. You must maintain a minimum attendance of 40% overall in order to avail the attendance for the period of assessment internship. You must ensure you appear for your internal assessment as well.”

5.4. Based on the above he submits that attendance for moot Court is not compulsory and even if it were to be so, since the Petitioner has done his internship, 40% attendance overall would be sufficient and neither the college nor university can insist on 70% minimum attendance.

6. Heard Sri.Trivikarm., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt.Saritha Kulkarni., learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri.M.N.Uma Shankar., learned cou