Minimum working days for examinations must be adhered to; insufficient days can prejudice students' rights.

JUDGMENT

Petitioners are students enrolled in the 3 year Unitary LL.B and 5 year LL.B course at the 4^th respondent Institution, which is a respondent University. Some of the petitioners were initially deprived of an opportunity to write their examinations on account of shortage in attendance. While so, petitioners 4 to 6 obtained condonation for their attendance shortage from the University itself, and respondents 7 and 9 was found to have sufficient attendance to write the examination. Petitioners 1 to 3 were also identified as having attendance within the condonable limits. Hence, after the petitioners approached this Court through this writ petition, an interim direction was issued on 09.10.2025, directing respondents 3 and 4 to accept the examination fees of the petitioners provisionally, subject to further orders in this writ petition.

2. Petitioners contend that the college had conducted only 71 working days in total for the second semester for both courses. Therefore, the petitioners were deprived of making good their shortage of attendance since the minimum required working days as per the University regulations was 90 working days. The learned counsel relied upon the decision in Satheesh Kumar N. and Others v. Mahatma Gandhi University and others [2015 (4) KHC 932], which stipulated that examinations for each semester can only be scheduled after a minimum of 90 working days and only after the completion of the requisite number of lecture classes, tutorials, moot court and seminars can the examination for each of the Semesters be scheduled, with the minimum hours stipulated by the Bar Council of India being completed before the commencement of the examinations for each of the Semester.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the University, the learned counsel for the 4^th respondent as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the 5^th respondent, this Court is of the view that since petitioners 1 to 3 had already written the examination provisionally, the order permitting them to write the examination must be made absolute.

4. In this context, this Court bears in mind the fact that the college had failed to conduct the minimum number of hours before scheduling the examination, which it is was bound to do. Had the college carried out the minimum number of hours and working days, there was every chance for the students to make up for the shortage in attendance and even achieve the minimum percentage of attendance or at least fall within the condonable limit. Therefore, petitioners have been prejudiced on account of the omission of the college to conduct the minimum number of working days.

In such circumstances, I am satisfied that the permission granted to the petitioners to write the second-semester examination should be regularized, and their results should be published. Ordered accordingly.

The writ petition is allowed as above.

sd/-