JUDGMENT
Anil Kumar, J.
1. The petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari or any other writ or direction quashing or setting aside the order dated 2nd December, 2005 passed by respondent Nos. 2 detaining the petitioner from appearing in third semester LLB examination on account of shortage of attendance.
2. Brief facts to comprehend the controversies are that petitioner contended that he had been a first class student throughout his life scoring 85% marks in his secondary examination and after graduating the petitioner joined the LLB course at Law Centre I, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, New Delhi. The petitioner qualified all the papers of the first semester. The result of the petitioner for the second semester examination was not declared due to UFM (unfair means) case against him. The petitioner was, therefore, denied admission to second year LLB course which commenced on 2nd August, 2005 and which continued till 9th August, 2005 though he had approached for admission 4th August,2005.
3. Though the petitioner was eligible for admission to the third semester (2nd Year) as he had already cleared minimum of five papers as per the requirement under the rules, however, he was not given admission and was finally granted admission after his case for unfair means was decided by a communication dated 13th?September, 2005 whereby his examination in one of the papers, Paper VII, was cancelled.
4. The petitioner was, however, given admission on 22nd September, 2005 after he had re-applied for admission on 14th September, 2005. On re-applying for admission on 14th September, 2006, he was declined admission on the ground that last date for admission was over though when the petitioner had applied for admission between 2nd August, 2005 to 9th August, 2005 on 4th August,2005, it was represented to the petitioner that he would be given admission once his result for the second semester would be declared. The petitioner had made representation to the Registrar on 15th September, 2005 against not granting him admission in accordance with rules and regulations which was finally granted on 22nd September, 2005. The rules regarding Bachelor of Law (LLB) Degree, according to the petitioner, were stipulated in a Brochure which was given to him prior to his joining the course. The promotion rules stipulated were as follows:
Promotion Rules:
A student of the First, Third and Fifth term will be promoted to the Second, Fourth and Sixth Term respectively, irrespective of the number of courses in which he/she has failed to pass or failed to appear in the First, third of Fifth Term Examinations: Provided that he or she has not been detained on account of shortage of attendance in First, Third or Fifth Terms Examinations, as the case may be.
Provided further that no such student shall be admitted to the Third or Fifth Term unless he/she has passed in at least five courses offered by him/her for the first and Second Term Examinations taken together in case of promotion from I year to II year and in at least fifteen courses offered by him/her for the first, Second, Third and Fourth Term examinations taken together incase of promotion from II year to III year of the LL.B. course.
Note: The student eligible for admission to III/IV Term must seek admission not later than two weeks from the date(s) of announcements of the results of LL.B. II/IV Term Annual Examinations or within one week of commencement of classes, whichever is later, failing which they will forfeit their right to be admitted to III/V Term.
5. The petitioner attended classes from 22nd September, 2005 and his attendance was 95% as he attended 63 classes out of 65. According to rules of the respondent, a candidate is liable to study at least 66% of the lectures to be entitled for a degree of LLB. The relevant rule regarding attendance is as follows:
In the case of students studying for the LL.B. Degree examination, no student shall be deemed to have pursued a regular course of study unless he/she has attended at lease two-third of the total number of lectures delivered in each year including tutorials, seminars and discussion classes held during the academic year in which he has been admitted as a regular student of faculty.
Provided, however, that the Dean, may for reasons to be recorded in writing, permit a student of the 2nd or 4th Term to take the examination if he short by not more than 10% of the total number of lectures delivered including tutorials, seminars and discussions classes held during the 1st or the 2nd year of the course, as the case may be. Such a student shall have to make-up the deficiency in attendance of the previous year in the next following year in which he is admitted failing which he shall not be deemed to have fulfillled attendance requirement of the year:
provided further that in case of students who are not admitted at the time of the commencement of the courses due to non clearance of the required courses and are admitted later after the declaration of the results of the supplementary examinations, the attending shall count from the date of declaration of the supplementary examination results.
Provided that in exceptional cases for reasons to be recorded and communicated to the Bar Council of India, the Dean of the Faculty of Law/Professor-in-Charge of the Law Centre may condone attendance short of those required by this Rule, if the student had attended 66% of the lectures in the aggregate for the semester examinations.
Provided further that no person shall be deemed to have satisfied the required conditions in respect of his instructions unless, in addition to the requirements regarding attendance and other conditions, he has appeared and satisfied by his performance the Professor-in-Charge of the Law Centre in such test, written and/or oral, as may be held by him in his discretion. The Professor-in-Charge shall have, and shall be deemed always to have had, the power to detain a student in the same class in which he has been studying, or not to send him up for the Universtiy Examination, in case he did not appear at the test/s aforesaid or his performance was not satisfactory.
The Professor-in-Charge of the Law Centre shall have power to strike off the name of a student who is grossly irregular in attendance inspite of warning, or, when the absence of the student is for such a long period that he cannot put in requisite percentage of attendance.
In the prospectus issued by the respondents pertaining to the Bachelor of Laws (LL.B) degree the rules for attendance were at stipulated as under:
ATTENDANCE
In the case of students studying for the LL.B. Degree examination, no student shall be deemed to have pursued a regular course of study unless he/she has attended 66% of the lectures in each of the subjects as also at the moot courts and practical training course.
Provided that in exceptional cases for reasons to be recorded and communicated to the Bar Council of India, the Dean of the Faculty of Law/Professor-in-Charge of the Law Centre may condone attendance short of those required by this Rule, if the student had attended 66% of the lectures in the aggregate for the semester examinations.
Provided further that no person shall be deemed to have satisfied the required conditions in respect of his instructions unless, in addition to the requirements regarding attendance and other conditions, he has appeared and satisfied by his performance the Professor-in-Charge of the Law Centre in such test, written and/or oral, as may be held by him in his discretion. The Professor-in-Charge shall have, and shall be deemed always to have had, the power to detain a student in the same class in which he has been studying, or not to send him up for the University Examination, in case he did not appear at the test/s aforesaid or his performance was not satisfactory.
The Professor-in-Charge of the Law Centre shall have power to strike off the name of a student who is grossly irregular in attendance inspite of warning, or, when the absence of the student is for such a long period that he cannot put in requisite percentage of attendance.
6. In the third-term examination, the petitioner attendance was calculated from the date the semester commenced and not from the date he was granted admission and his attendance was 46.5% and, therefore, he was included in the list of detained students put up by the respondents on 2nd December, 2005 which included the name of the petitioner. ? It seems the name of petitioner was included in 89 candidates who were detained. ?However, another list was put up on the same date at 7.00 pm in which the number of detained students was reduced to 87 and yet another list was put up on the same date in which the number of detained students was reduced to 42. The petitioner alleged that some of the students who were short of attendance were, however, given admission tickets to appear in the examination.
7. Aggrieved by the action of the respondent in denying the petitioner to appear in the third semester LLB degree examination, the petitioner filed the present writ petition praying inter alia for quashing of the order dated 2nd December, 2005 whereby he was detained on account of shortage of attendance. On an interim application of the petitioner he was allowed to appear in the third semester LLB examination by order dated 5th December, 2005, however, permission was granted to the petitioner without creating any equity in his favor and it was directed that his result would be kept in a sealed cover. The petitioner has sought quashing of the order detaining him on account of shortage of attendance on the ground that though he was entitled for promotion after first and second semester in accordance with the promotion rules, however, he was denied admission illegally in the third semester. It was contended on behalf of petitioner that he was given hearing in the case of unfair means against him on 24th July, 2005, however, the decision in the case of unfair means was given on 13th September, 2004 canceling his examination only in one paper VII of LLB Degree course. Since the petitioner was denied admission to the third semester on account of lapses on the part of respondents and attributable to them, he could not be detained for the third semester examination on account of shortage of attendance by not computing his attendance from 22nd September, 2005, when he was granted admission but from the day the 3rd semester commenced. Petitioner has also challenged refusal of admission to him on 4th August, 2005 within two days of starting of admission process, on the ground that an UFM case was pending against him, though no such interim orders had been passed that the petitioner will not be admitted in the next course the concerned committee or by the respondents. According to the petitioner, the respondents have even failed to give a justification of not granting admission to him till 22nd September, 2005 when the decision of Examination Disciplinary Committee was given on 13th September, 2005. ? The averment of the petitioner is that for their own lapses in not granting admission, he cannot be penalized and his case ought to have been considered under the rules for condensation of attendance. The petitioner has also relied on an Ordinance VII regarding power to condone the attendance not exceeding 1/3rd of total number of lectures delivered.
The provision VII (9) is as under:
(9)(a) Subject to the provisions of Sub-clauses (b) and (c):
(i) In the case of a student who is selected as a member of the N.C.C. to participate in the annual N.C.C. Camps or is deputed to undertake Civil defense work and allied duties or in the case of a student who is enrolled in the National Service Scheme and is deputed to various public assignments by or with the approval of the Head of the institution concerned or a student who is selected to participate in sports or other activities organized by the Inter- University Board or in national or international fixtures in games and sports approved by the Vice-Chancellor or a student who is required to represent the University at the Inter-University Youth Festival, or a student who is required to participate in periodical training in the Territorial Army or a student who is deputed by the College to take part in Inter-College sports or fixtures, debates, seminars, symposia or social work projects or a student who is required to represent the College concerned in debates and other extra-curricular activities held in other Universities or such other activities approved by the Vice Chancellor for this purpose, in calculating the total number of lectures etc. delivered in college, or in the University, as the case may be, for his course of study in each academic year, the number of lecture etc., in each subject delivered during the period of absence for that purpose shall not be taken into account.
(ii) The Principal of a College may consider, on the basis of the Medical Certificates produced, exceptionally hard cases of students who had fallen seriously ill or had met with an accident during the year disabling them from attending classes for a certain period, with a view to determining whether the lectures etc. delivered during the said period, or a part thereof, could be excluded for purposes of calculation of attendance of the year and decide each case on its own merits.
(b) A College shall notify on the notice board the final attendance position of each of its students within three days of the dispersal of the classes in the last session of the academic year. Not later than five days, thereafter, a student may, by an application to the Principal of the College, claim benefit of exclusion of lectures under Sub-clause (a) above on grounds to be specified and accompanied by the relevant documents. All such applications submitted within time shall be considered and disposed of by the Principal of College at least 3 days prior to the commencement of the examination in which the student is intending to appear.
(c) The benefit of exclusion of lectures contemplated in categories (i) or
(ii) of Sub-clause (a) above, either separately or jointly, shall in no case exceed 1/3 of the total number of lectures delivered.
(d) In the case of a married woman student who is granted maternity leave, in calculating the total number of lectures delivered in College or in the University, as the case may be, for her course of study in each academic year, the number of lecturers in each subject delivered during the period of her maternity leave shall not be taken into account:
Provided that Post-graduate Degree students under the Faculty of Medical Sciences who apply for maternity leave either in I year or in II year, may be allowed the maternity leave for a period not exceeding 3 months in an academic year but such students will be required to complete the duration of the course as regular students as required in the Ordinance and the students will be permitted to submit the thesis or to take the written examination, as the case may be, in January instead of August that year.
(10) In case of all Certificate and Diploma Courses in the Department of Modern European Languages, the students will be required to put in not less than 60% of attendance at lectures etc., besides satisfactory home-work, in each term separately, and three-fourths of attendance during the year (all terms taken together)
2-A.(i) No person shall be deemed to have satisfied the required conditions in respect of his instructions, unless in addition to the requirements regarding attendance and other conditions, he has appeared and satisfied by his performance the Principal of his College in such tests, written and/or oral, as may be held by him in his discretion. The Principal of the College shall have, and shall be deemed always to have had, the power to detain a student in the same class in which he has been studying, or not to send him up for the University Examination, in case he did not appear at the test/s aforesaid or his performance was not satisfactory.
(ii) The Principal of a College shall have power to strike off the name of a student who is grossly irregular in attendance inspite of warning, or when the absence of the student is for such a long period that he cannot put in requisite percentage of attendance.
8. In the circumstances petitioner contended that his attendance ought to have been computed from the date he was given admission on 22nd September, 2005. And his attendance is more than two third and he was eligible to appear in the examination of third semester and could not be detained by the respondents.
9. The petition is contested by the respondent contending that petitioner was a student of LL.B. II Year of respondent No. 2, Law Centre I, and ordinance VII 8 (a) which has a statutory force, he was required to attend 66% of the lectures in each subjects. According to the respondents only in exceptional cases for reasons to be recorded and communicated to the Bar Council of India, the Dean of the Faculty of Law/Professor-in-Charge of the Law Centre could condone attendance short of those required by the Rule, if the student had attended 66% of the lectures in the category for the semester examination. It was further contended that besides having the attendance of 66% of the lectures in the aggregate for the semester examination, such a candidate must specify by his performance in such test, written and/or oral, as may be held by the Professor-in-Charge in his discretion. Relying on S.N. Singh v. Union of India and Ors. , it was contended that Bar Council of India rule requires 66% attendance in each paper and empowers relaxation in a particular paper, provided, however, total attendance in all papers is 66%. According to respondents, in S.N. Singh (supra), it was held that since the Bar Council of India recognizes the LL.B. degree course of the University of Delhi and the Bar Council of India is a statutory body constituted under the Advocates Act, 1961 and is empowered to lay down standards of legal education, University of Delhi was directed to bring its rules in conformity with the rules of Bar Council of India and in compliance thereof the University of Delhi had amended its rules in September 2003 and made them in conformity with the Bar Council of India Rules. According to the respondents, the petitioner fell short of 66% of attendance in aggregate of total lectures delivered. Consequently, it was contended that the University of Delhi has no power to grant exemption to the petitioner as per ordinance VII Clause 8 (a).
10. The respondents also relied on the fact that the petitioner was caught using unfair means in paper VII of the second semester examination and he was held guilty and his examination result for that paper was cancelled. The petitioner’s result was, however, declared on 9th September, 2005 and the petitioner failed in two subjects and passed in two and one was cancelled as submitted above.
11. The respondent has opposed the plea of the petitioner on the ground that though the classes started on August 2, 2005, however, petitioner came to the respondent’s office for admission on 13th September, 2005 and he was told that he would not be able to comply with the attendance requirement and he was admitted on his undertaking that he would attend 100% remaining lectures and would be able to make up the shortfall. The petitioner was given admission on his undertaking that he would attend 100% remaining lectures and would be able to make up the shortfall and, consequently, the petitioner was admitted on 22nd September, 2005. According to the respondent, the attendance has to be counted from the date of commencement of classes on 2nd August, 2005 and his total attendance was 40.6% in aggregate as follows:
S.No. Subjects Classes attended Percentage of attendance
1 Constitutional Law ? I 11 out of 33 33.30%
2 Limitation and Arbitration 15 of 39 38.50%
3 Business Association 12 out of 30 40.00%
4 Taxation I 14 out of 35 40.00%
5 Carriage 17 out of 33 51.50%
Total percentage out of 5 subjects 40.6%
12. The respondents also relied on the fact that the admission to the third semester begun from 2nd August, 2005 and last date for seeking admission was 9th August, 2005 and the petitioner could not be granted admission as an unfair means (UFM) case was pending against him before the Examination Disciplinary Committee and his result was not declared by that time. According to the respondent, the petitioner himself contributed to the delay by resorting to unfair means in the examination.
13. Per contra the petitioner has relied on (1976) 2 SCR 722, Shri Krishan v. Kurukshetra University and , Shalini v. Kurukshetra University and Anr. to contend that when the delay was on the part of the University and is not attributable to the petitioner, the University cannot take shelter of such attendance rules to defeat the legitimate right of the petitioner. Relying on Ordinance VII (9) of the University Calendar, it was asserted by the petitioner that the Principal of each college has been conferred power to exclude 1/3rd lectures held for the purpose of calculating attendance in extremely hard cases. The petitioner contended that he approached the college authority within time for the purpose of his admission and despite being a case of unfair means in respect of second semester examination, on the basis of his performance in the first semester and according to the rules for promotion he ought to have been admitted to the second year as the petitioner was entitled for admission which was not granted by the respondents illegally. For the illegality committed by the respondents in not granting admission contrary to rules to the second year, the Principal must exercise the power to exclude 1/3rd lectures held as it will be a case of extreme hardship. It was also contended that the respondents further delayed giving admission to the petitioner till 22nd September, 2005 even though his result was declared on 9th September, 2005 and the decision of the Examination Disciplinary Committee was conveyed on 13th September, 2005. Since the petitioner was eligible to be admitted in accordance with the promotion rules in August 2005 but he was denied admission illegally, the college must exercise power under Ordinance VII Clause 9 to grant exemption to the petitioner. The petitioner claimed that his attendance in the circumstances ought to be calculated from the date of his admission and not from the commencement of the session and relied on Proviso to Ordinance VII (1) (8).
14. The petitioner has also denied that he had only 40.6% attendance even if calculated from the commencement of the session as in the list of detained students his attendance was shown as 46.5%. If the attendance is calculated from the date of giving admission then the attendance of the petitioner is 95%. The petitioner also relied on the vagueness of the attendance rules which do not provide specifically that attendance is to be calculated from the date of the commencement of the classes, more so, in a case where delay in giving admission is clearly attributable to the respondents. Refuting the undertaking given by him, it was contended that first he was denied admission in the first week of August 2005 and thereafter when he approached after declaration of his result on 14th September, 2005, he was made to run from pillar to post and harassed over his admission which was only granted on 22nd September, 2005 after he was coerced to give an undertaking as he was threatened that his entire year would be wasted, if an undertaking is not given. Relying on the order passed by the Examination Disciplinary Committee, it was also argued that his admission was not kept in abeyance nor the rules confer any power on the college or the Examination Disciplinary Committee to refuse admission pending enquiry if the candidate is eligible for admission.
15. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the petition, reply affidavit and rejoinder affidavit filed by the parties and the judgments relied on by them. The respondents cannot dispute that the petitioner had approached respondents on 4th August, 2005. The petitioner in his communication addressed to Professor-in-Charge, Law Centre I, categorically stipulated that he has cleared all five subjects of his first semester which makes him eligible for the admission to the second year and consequently, he should be allowed admission in second year. Contrary to the promotion rules which contemplated that a candidate will be promoted to the third semester if he has passed in at least five courses offered to him for the first and second semester examination and he has not been detained on account of shortage of attendance, it was noted on the application of the petitioner that since the result of the petitioner has not been declared for the second semester, his admission should be done after the decision of the Examination Disciplinary Committee. The endorsement on the application of the petitioner was made without considering the promotion rules and the order passed by the Examination Disciplinary Committee. It is apparent that in the circumstances, the clear lapse is on the part of the respondents in denying admission to the petitioner in third semester.
16. The decision of Examination Disciplinary Committee canceling his result in one paper only was given on 9th September, 2005, however, it took few days to be communicated it to the petitioner on receiving the communication on 13th September,2005, the petitioner contacted the respondents on 14th September, 2005 which fact has not been denied. Though the petitioner approached the respondent on 14th September, 2005, no plausible explanation has been given as to why he was not given admission for another week and was admitted only on 22nd September, 2005 after taking an undertaking that his attendance will be counted from the date from which various classes started and that he will complete the requirement of 66% attendance and in case his attendance is short, he will not be allowed to appear in third semester examination. It is apparent that had the petitioner not given this undertaking, he had no recourse left to him to get the admission and he would have lost a full year without any lapse on his part and glaring lapse on the part of the respondent in not granting him admission to third semester (second year) contrary to the rules.
17. The apex Court in Shalini (supra) had held that for the time lost in dispute or litigation with University should not entail penalization of the admission. In this matter, the candidate was granted provisional permission to pursue B.Sc. Part II course on direction of the High Court but her writ petition was ultimately erroneously dismissed on the factually incorrect finding that her application for revaluation of part I result was submitted beyond the limitation period. By the time, the matter came up before the apex Court, Part III course had commenced and major portion of the educational year was over. Even in such circumstances, in the interest of justice, the apex Court held the candidate is a regular student of Part II course and her result was ordered to be declared and the candidate was also held to be entitled to apply for condensation of delay in applying for Part III course or to be entitled to admission in Part III course in the next academic session. The relevant observation of the apex Court is as under:
6.The appellant cannot be faulted for the delay on the part of the University in declaring the result, dispatching DMC and re-evaluating the appellant?s answer-books. The appellant has taken all the steps promptly and in the facts and circumstances of the case we cannot form an opinion, even prima facie, that there has been any delay, remissness or laches on the part of the appellant in taking any step either in approaching the respondents or the High Court. We are told that the result of BSc (HSc) Part II is yet to be declared officially by the respondents and for want of such result being declared, the appellant has not been allowed admission in BSc (HSc) Part III.
18. In Shri Krishan (supra), the apex Court has held that it is the duty of the University to scrutinize the form for admission to the examination in order to find out whether it is in order and it is also the duty of the Head of the Department to see that the form complied with all the requirements of law before submitting the form to the University. In this case, the petitioner, a government servant, had attended the L.LB. first year of the University and failed in three papers but was promoted to the second year. Before appearing in the second year, he, however, wrote to the University stating that if he would not be able to get the requisite permission from his employer to attend the law classes, he would abide by any order that the University may pass. Later on, he wrote that this condition was not at all necessary and sought declaration of his result in Part II, however, University did not declare his result as his percentage of marks in Part I was short and, therefore, his candidature for Part II examination was cancelled. ?The apex Court held in these circumstances that the University could withdraw the certificate if the petitioner had failed to attend the prescribed course of lectures but this could be done only before the examination. Once an applicant was allowed to take the examination, the statute which empowers the University to withdraw the candidature of the applicant has worked itself out and the applicant cannot be refused permission subsequently for any infirmity which should have been looked into before giving permission to appear. Regarding the undertaking given by the petitioner, it was held that such an undertaking was written by the petitioner because he was anxious to appear in Part II examination and the undertaking was given in terrorem and in complete ignorance of his legal rights and any admission made in ignorance of legal rights or under duress cannot bind the maker of the admission.
19. The petitioner had approached the respondent for admission on 4th August, 2005 and he was eligible to be admitted as neither he had shortage of attendance in the first and second semester nor there was any other embargo against admitting the petitioner in the second year (third semester) of the course. Though the result of the second semester was withheld, however, since the petitioner had qualified five papers of the first semester, he was entitled for admission to the third semester which was denied mechanically and without application of mind by the respondents by making an endorsement on his request to admit him in third semester on 4th August, 2005 that admission will be given only after declaration of his result by the examination committee of second semester. Subsequently, when the result of the petitioner of the second semester was communicated to the petitioner on 14th September, 2005 and only his result for one examination in which there was allegation of use of unfair means against him was cancelled, the undertaking which has been taken from him will be an undertaking in terrorem. The undertaking taken from the petitioner is in complete ignorance of his legal rights and such an undertaking obtained from him under duress will not bind the petitioner. From 14th September, 2005, the petitioner was not given admission till 22nd September, 2005 and only after obtaining the undertaking from him that if he will be short of attendance, he will not be allowed to appear in third year examination and that he will put 100% attendance and will complete requirement of 66%, admission was given to him.
20. After granting admission to the petitioner in third semester on 22nd September, 2005 if the attendance is calculated from the date of his admission, it will be 95% of the lectures held which fact has not been denied by the respondents. However, from the commencement of the session his attendance is only 40.6% though in the list of detained candidates his attendance has been given as 46.5%. Had the petitioner attended 100% classes from 22nd September 2005, even then he could not have competed 66% of the attendance for which the undertaking was taken from him. In the circumstances, the inevitable conclusion is that the undertaking was given by the petitioner in terrorem and will not bind him.
21. Perusal of the attendance rules do not show that the attendance is to be counted from the date the classes started even in a case where the admission is given subsequently and delay in admission is not attributable to any lapse on the part of the candidate. Under Ordinance VII (9) (a) (ii), the hard cases of students who had fallen seriously ill or met with an accident disabling them from attending classes for a certain period could be excluded for purpose of calculation of attendance of the year and each case is to be decide on its own merit. The power under the said Ordinance ought to have been exercised by the respondents to exclude the period during which admission was not given to the petitioner for no lapse of the petitioner but on account of lapse on the part of respondents in declining admission contrary to rules for promotion.
22. The petitioner appeared in the examination of the third semester pursuant to interim order dated 5th December, 2005 passed by this Court, however, his result was to be kept in a sealed cover. The result of the petitioner was produced in a sealed cover and on perusal, it has transpired that his performance was quite adequate despite having shortage of attendance, if the attendance is computed from the date the first lecture started in the third semester, however, his attendance is requisite if it is counted from the date he was granted admission.
23. Chapter III of Condition for Admission to Examination, Ordinance VII (8) (a) second proviso contemplates that in cases of students who are not admitted at the time of commencement of the courses due to non-clearance of required courses and are admitted later after the declaration of the result of the supplementary examination, the attendance is to be counted from the date of declaration of supplementary examination result. ?The rational of this proviso is that if the result of the supplementary examination is not declared by the University in time, then a candidate who becomes entitled for admission on the basis of his performance in the supplementary examination, should not be penalized for the delay in declaration of supplementary examination by the University. If in such cases, the attendance is to be counted from the date of declaration of the supplementary examination result, a fortiori, if the admission is not given by the University contrary to rules, the attendance of such a candidate should be counted from the date admission is given to him. If that be so, the petitioner has requisite attendance in the third semester and therefore he would be entitled for the declaration of the result of the examination of the third semester in which he appeared pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court.
24. Considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances, the rule is made absolute and the order dated 2nd December, 2005 passed by respondents detaining the petitioner from appearing in the third semester of L.LB examination on account of shortage of attendance is quashed. The respondents are directed to declare the result of the petitioner of third semester forthwith. On the declaration of the result of the petitioner of the third semester, he shall be entitled for all the consequences of declaration of his result which will follow. However, considering the facts and circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs.