$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

W.P.(C) 256/2014

APOORV YADAV

..... Petitioner

Through

Mr. R.K. Saini with Mr. Anil Kumar

Yadav and Mr. Abhimanyu Dhawan,

Advocates

versus

UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS

..... Respondents

Through

Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Advocate

for R-1 to 3.

Mr. Preet Pal Singh, Advocate for

R-4/BCI.

Reserved on

:

15^th May, 2014.

%

Date of Decision :

27^th May, 2014

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

J U D G M E N T

MANMOHAN, J:

1.

Present writ petition has been filed seeking promotion of the

petitioner to second semester of LL.B. first year course and also for a

declaration that respondent-University's action of not allowing the petitioner

to sit in the exams of those subjects in which he had more than 70%

attendance in first semester was illegal.

2.

Admittedly, in the first semester, petitioner had the following

attendance in his 5 subjects:-

2014:DHC:2827

Subjects LB-101

Atnd/Delvd

LB-102

Atnd/Delvd

LB-103

Atnd/Delvd

LB-104

Atnd/Delvd

LB-105

Atnd/Delvd

TOTAL 16/38

21/39

22/39

28/43

18/41

Total number of Lectures attended : 16+21+22+28+18 = 105

Total number of Lectures delivered : 38+39+39+43+41=200

3.

Petitioner in this writ petition claims that he is entitled to two

attendances in each subject on account of attending a moot court as also for

remission of some lectures on the ground that he was admitted late.

4.

According to Mr. R.K. Saini, learned counsel for petitioner, if

provision is made for the aforesaid relaxations then the petitioner’s

attendance in two subjects would exceed 70% and his overall attendance

would be 65%.

5.

He stated that in accordance with Rule 12 of the Bar Council of

India's Rules of Legal Education, 2008 (for short ‘Rules, 2008’) a student

whose minimum attendance was 70% in a particular subject, was entitled to

appear in the examination of the said subject.

6.

Mr. Saini pointed out that on 25th June, 2010 through a public notice,

the Bar Council of India had announced that universities and colleges had to

report compliance with Rules, 2008 by July, 2010.

7.

He further submitted that in view of the judgments of this Court in

S.N.Singh v.Union of India, 106(2003) DLJ 329, Satyendra Singh v.

University of Delhi, WP(C)No. 3225/2008, Kiran Kumar v. University of

Delhi & Ors., W.P(C) No.9143/2007, Komal Jain v. University of Delhi,

WP(C) No. 8534/2008, as well as Sukriti Upadhyay v. University of Delhi,

LPA 539/2010, Bar Council Rules of Legal Education would prevail over

2014:DHC:2827

the attendance rules prescribed by the Delhi University in its Bulletin of

Information 2013-2014.

8.

Consequently, according to Mr. Saini, if a student had 70% or above

attendance in a subject, the respondents were legally bound to allow him to

appear in that subject examination. The Law Faculty had committed an

error by not allowing the petitioner to appear in two papers of the first

semester in which he had 70% or more attendance.

9.

On the other hand, Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, learned counsel for

respondent-University stated that in accordance with Bulletin of

Information 2013-2014, all students of LL.B. course had to attend

minimum 66% aggregate lectures in all the subjects.

10.

He stated that if a student was promoted to the next semester without

having minimum attendance of 70% in all subjects then the said student

would never be able to complete attendance shortfall in classes of the

subjects taught in previous semester since the classes of the new subjects in

the next semester were bound to overlap leading to utter chaos and

mismanagement entirely due to the default of such student. He further

stated that even if it is assumed that the student would be able to attend

classes of previous subjects that would only be feasible after one year when

the next academic sessions would have started. Since considerable

emphasis