Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Megh) 147
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
Hon’ble Mr. I.P. Mukerji, CJ, Hon’ble Mr. W. Diengdoh, J
Shri Bamang Nabam – Appellant
Versus
North Eastern Hill University (in short NEHU) represented by the Registrar of NEHU – Respondent
WA No.74/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. P. Yobin, Adv, Ms. I. Laloo, Adv, Mr. A. Dkhar, Adv
For the Respondents: Mr. S. Sen, Adv, Ms. E. Blah, Adv for R/1-3, Mr. S. Chakrawarty, Sr.Adv, Mr. E. Laloo, Adv for R/4
Attendance requirements under educational rules may be relaxed in extraordinary circumstances, such as illness, to ensure fairness and equity in student assessments.
Headnote:(A) Rules of Legal Education, 2008 - Rule 12 - Minimum attendance requirements - Student denied examination due to short attendance (60% instead of 70%) - Illness cited as reason for absences - Court interprets rule with compassion for extraordinary circumstances - Court reiterates rule does not apply in cases of illness preventing attendance. (Paras 5, 15, 17, 20)
(B) Appeal - Court's authority to intervene - Court emphasizes that each case must be assessed on individual merits, particularly when special circumstances exist that justify deviations from strict adherence to rules. (Paras 24, 28)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, a diligent student with a gallbladder ailment, was not permitted to write his 5th-semester examination due to falling short of minimum attendance requirements under Rule 12. Despite being critically ill, he attended classes well until his health worsened.
Findings of Court:
The attendance record indicates the appellant's extraordinary circumstances warrant treating his attendance as regular, thus allowing him to sit for the examination.
Issues: The court primarily addressed whether extraordinary circumstances like illness justify a deviation from minimum attendance rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that in instances of illness or similar unforeseen events, administrators are to consider the overall performance and circumstances before denying students their examination rights based on attendance alone.
Result: Appeal allowed; the impugned judgment and order is set aside.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice I.P. Mukerji, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge Appearance:
For the Appellant : Mr. P. Yobin, Adv with Ms. I. Laloo, Adv Mr. A. Dkhar, Adv For the Respondent : Mr. S. Sen, Adv with Ms. E. Blah, Adv for R/1-3 Mr. S. Chakrawarty, Sr.Adv with Mr. E. Laloo, Adv for R/4 F i) Whether approved for Yes reporting in Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication Yes in press:
Note: For proper public information and transparency, any media reporting this judgment is directed to mention the composition of the bench by name of judges, while reporting this judgment/order.
JUDGEMENT: (per the Hon’ble, the Chief Justice) (ORAL The appellant was a 5th semester student of Shillong Law College under North Eastern Hill University (NEHU), pursuing its LLB course.
He was not allowed to write the 5th semester examination which was held some time in December, 2024. The reason why the college did not allow him to do so was that his attendance was short. Rule 12 of the Rules of Legal Education , 2008 was made applicable. Its states that if a student does not have minimum 70 per cent attendance in each subject, he would be ineligible to take the examination. The Dean of the University or the Principal of the Centre of Legal Education had a limited power of allowing students with at least 65 per cent attendance to appear for the examination provided the reasons for such exercise of power were exceptional.
In this case, the attendance of the appellant-student was 60 per cent.
He pleaded that his attendance fell short due to gallbladder ailment followed by surgery that he underwent in November, 2024 and that he should be allowed to write the examination.
Learned single judge hearing the writ petition felt himself bound by the said rule and dismissed the writ petition.
The appeal was preferred before us.
By our interim order dated 5th December, 2024, we allowed the appellant to sit for the examination without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the appeal.
We are told that he appeared in the examination, the result of which is awaited.
In the meantime, the appeal became ready for hearing on filing of paper-books. We have heard out the appeal today.
First let us set out Rule 12 . It is as follows:
“12. End Semester Test.
No students of any of the degree program shall be allowed to take the end semester test in a subject if the student concerned has not attended minimum of 70% of the classes held in the subject concerned as also the moot court room exercises, tutorials and practical training conducted in the subject taken together.
Provided that if a student for any exceptional reasons fail to attend 70% of the classes held in any subject, the Dean of the University or the Principal of the Centre of Legal Education, as the case may be, may allow the student to take the test if the student concerned attended at least 65% of the classes held in the subject concerned and attended 70% of classes in all the subjects taken together. The similar power shall rest the Vice Chancellor or Director of a National Law University, or his authorized representative in the absence of the Dean of Law.”
The facts which the appellant/writ petitioner present before us and not contradicted by the respondents are these: He is a very diligent and meritorious student.
From or about August, 2024, he developed an ailment relating to his gallbladder. Often, he used to be in intense pain as a result of which, his attendance dipped sharply in August, 2024. However, he was in better state of health in September, 2024. His attendance was 100 per cent in evidence, Civil Procedure code, labour law and drafting, pleadings and conveyancing and
85.71 per cent in human rights, the average of which was 97 per cent. Once again in October, 2024 his illness aggravated and there was a drop in attendance although not so much as it was in August, 2024. The attendance range was between 50 per cent and 85.71 per cent in the five papers. This continued
