The court emphasized that university attendance requirements are strict but may allow for relaxation under exceptional circumstances, subject to proper representation and consideration by the university authorities.

Per: Raj Mohan Singh, J. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the issuance of necessary directions to relax the attendance criteria with a view to save the petitioner from undergoing rigour of re-repeat examination and re-admission in final semester of B.A.L.L.B(Hons.).

According to University Ordinance overall 70% attendance is required for making a student eligible for taking exam. The petitioner has attended 57.7% and there was shortage of 12.3%. The Executive Council while exercising the power of relaxation under the M.P. National Law University Act, 2018 has given 10% relaxation to all the students. Even after availing the aforesaid relaxation, the petitioner is found to be deficit by 2.3%. As per attendance requirement, no student of any of the degree programme shall be allowed to take 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 exercises, tutorials and practical training conducted in the subject taken together.

Provided that if a student for any exceptional reasons failed 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 the classes in all the subjects taken together. The similar power shall rest with the Vice-Chancellor or his authorized representative in the absence of the Dean of law.

Provided further relaxation in attendance may be granted, for any exceptional reasons, only if: (i) a student has attended 70% of the classes in all the subjects taken together and, (ii) has also attended at least 65% of the classes held in the subject concerned. A student who does not fulfil the conditions prescribed in either (i) or (ii), her/his application for relaxation in attendance shall not be entertained.

There is an attendance make-up requirement in the University Ordinance providing i.e. students having at least 70% classes in the aggregate in a semester and having less than 70% attendance, but more than 65% attendance in individual courses if not allowed by the Vice Chancellor/Dean of faculty, shall be required to make an application to the Registrar for attending the library or on before such date as may be notified by the Registrar in this regard.

A perusal of sub-para No.3 and 4 of para 7 of attendance requirement further makes it clear that relaxation can only be granted strictly as per parameters herein above provided.

The Petitioner is deficit by 2.3%. If the benefit of non-day is also granted to the petitioner, still the deficit would be 1.3%. The petitioner has attached medical certificates showing his medical state of health in terms of Annexures P/8 and P/12. On the strength of these documents, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was sufficiently prevented from attending required number of periods/classes due to the circumstances beyond his control. It is true that a University Ordinance is a complete code and the Courts have minimum role to play.

Admittedly, the original requirement of attending 70% of the lectures have been brought down to 60% by a conscious decision of the Executive Council.

In doing so, the University has adopted a very equitable approach. This writ petition can be disposed of by relegating the petitioner to approach the competent authority of the University once again along with a detailed representation accompanied by medical documents for consideration of the competent Authority. The Authority may consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically. The University may also consider the candidature of the petitioner for repeat examination, subject to final adjudication of his representation.

With the aforesaid observation, this petition stands disposed of.