IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Sr. No.133

Civil Writ Petition No.11487 of 2022

Date of Decision : May 25, 2022

Armaan Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

Director, Institute of Law, Kurukshetra University,

Kurukshetra and others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR MITTAL

Present:

Mr. Narender Pal Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner.

*****

SUDHIR MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

The petitioner is a student of 10^th semester of BA LLB

(Honours) course being conduced by the Institute of Law, Kurukshetra

University, Kurukshetra. FIR No.138, dated 23.02.2022 was registered

against him at Police Station Ladwa, Kurukshetra under Sections 148, 149,

323, 325, 379-B, 506, 120-B IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act 1959.

Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 379-B have since been

deleted and Section 307 IPC has been added. Petitioner was arrested on

05.03.2022. Investigation is complete and challan has been presented on

05.04.2022. Copy thereof has also been supplied to the petitioner on

30.04.2022. While in custody, he was permitted to take the viva/practical

examination from 27.04.2022 to 29.04.2022 and 10.05.2022 as permission

was granted by the trial Court. Thereafter, he applied for permission to

appear in the theory examination and permission has been granted.

However, vide letter dated 20.05.2022 issued by respondent No.1, the

ANKUR GOYAL

2022.05.27 17:15

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

Civil Writ Petition No.11487 of 2022

--2--

petitioner has been debarred from taking the said examination on account of

shortage of lectures. Thus, this writ petition has been filed for directing

respondents No.1 & 2 to permit the petitioner to take the theory examination

scheduled from 20.05.2022 to 15.06.2022.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that shortage

in lectures being on account of reasons beyond the control of the petitioner

he should have been permitted to take the theory examination. For this

purpose, reliance has been placed upon Salil Trikha vs. Guru Nanak Dev

University, Amritsar and another, 2011(1) SCT 587 and Preeti Mulji

Sondarwa and others vs. Controller of Examinations, University of

Mumbai and others, 2015(14) SCT 661. Further, it has been submitted that

according to Rule 12 of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008 framed by the

Bar Council of India, requirement of minimum attendance is 70% in one

semester, whereas respondent No.1 has stated in the impugned

communication dated 20.05.2022 that it is 75%. Even the Dean of the

University or the Principal of the College have been given the power to

allow a student to take the examination if he has attended 65% of the

classes. Thus, for this reason also, the petitioner deserves to be granted

relief.

Sh. Amarjit Singh Virk, Advocate has put in appearance on

behalf of respondents No.1, 2, 5 & 6 as advance notice of the writ petition

was received by him. He submits that provision of minimum 75% of classes

is based upon Clause 4 of the University Ordinance. The same will prevail

over the Bar Council of India Rules. The judgments relied upon by learned

ANKUR GOYAL

2022.05.27 17:15

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

Civil Writ Petition No.11487 of 2022

--3--

counsel for the petitioner are not applicable, instead, judgment dated

12.03.2019 passed in CWP-6572 of 2019, Gaurav Dahiya (minor) through

his father vs. Central Board of School Education, Delhi and others would

apply. It is also stated that the petitioner has attended only 43% lectures.

Thus, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

The minimum percentage of lectures/classes required to be

attended is not in issue in this writ petition. The only issue is whether in the

circumstances of this case, petitioner deserves to be permitted to take the

theory examination?

In Salil Trikha (supra), the petitioner was hos