LPA NO. 662/2010 Page 1 of 9

11. *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

LPA 662/2010

UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Appellants

Through Mr. M.J.S. Rupal, Advocate.

versus

VANDANA KANDARI & ANR. ..... Respondents

Through Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

O R D E R

% 10.01.2011

CM NO. 16542/2010

It is an application for condonation of delay. Having heard Mr.

M.J.S. Rupal, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. R.K. Saini,

learned counsel for the respondent, we are inclined to think that

sufficient ground exist for condonation of delay and accordingly the

same stands condoned.

The application is disposed of.

LPA No. 662/2010

In this intra-Court appeal, the assail is to the order dated 12^th July,

2010 whereby the learned single Judge has extended the benefit of

realization of attendance on the ground that the said respondents were on

maternity leave. Mr. M.J.S. Rupal, learned counsel for the appellants

has very fairly stated that he was required to file two appeals but he has

filed a composite appeal. Learned counsel has submitted that the learned

single Judge has committed an error by making a distinction between the

2011:DHC:123-DB

LPA NO. 662/2010 Page 2 of 9

medical leave and maternity leave. He has placed reliance on the

Division Bench decision in Sukriti Upadhyay versus University of Delhi

(LPA No. 539/2010 decided on 4^th October, 2010) wherein this Court

after referring to the rules invoked in paragraphs 8 to 12 has held thus:-

“8. Rule 3 of the 1975 Rules reads as follows:

9. On a perusal of the aforesaid Rule, it is

quite clear that a student is required to have

the minimum attendance of 66% of the

lectures on each of the subjects as also on

tutorials, moot courts and practical training

course. The exception that has been carved

out is that if the student has 66% attendance

of the lectures aggregate for the semester or

examination, as the case may be, the Dean

of the Faculty of Law and the Principal of

law colleges may condone attendance short

of those required by the Rule. The learned

counsel for the parties fairly stated that the

case of the present appellant does not fall in

the said exceptional class.

10. The question that falls for consideration

is whether Rule 3 of the 1975 Rules or the

2011:DHC:123-DB

LPA NO. 662/2010 Page 3 of 9

Statutes framed by the University pertaining

to obtaining of percentage of attendance

would prevail. It is not in dispute that the

Ordinance of the University deals with

matters relating to admission to the

university, transfer of students from one

course to the other, migration of students,

conditions for admission to examination,

conduct of examination and various other

aspects. In the case of S.N. Singh (supra),

the Division Bench noticing the stipulation

in the relevant clauses in the Statute VII and

the Rule framed by the Bar Council of India

has held as follows:

the rules of the Bar Council of India.”

Eventually, the Division Bench directed as

under:

2011:DHC:123-DB

LPA NO. 662/2010 Page 4 of 9

framed there under.”

11. In Kiran Kumari (supra), another

Division Bench of this Court referred to the

decisions in Baldev Raj Sharma v. Bal

Council of India & Ors., 1989 Supp. (2)

SCC 91, Bar Council of India & Another

v. Aparna Basu Mallick & Ors., (1994) 2

SCC 102, S.N. Singh (supra) and exp