JUDGMENT
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
1. The Petitioner invokes the writ jurisdiction of this Court and claims a direction to admit her in the fifth semester of the LLB Course, conducted by the Delhi University.
2. The brief facts necessary to decide these proceedings are that the Petitioner, a resident of Leh, Jammu and Kashmir enrolled with the Campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi in the year 2004. The course has six semesters and 30 subjects have to be cleared by every student by the end of the sixth semester, to secure a law degree. A student has to clear 15 out of 20 subjects in order to qualify for admission to the fifth semester.
3. The Petitioner is a regular student. She avers about her participation in legal aid camps, by providing free legal assistance to the under privileged, living in slum areas. She claims to have represented her college in the Moot Court Competition held in Aurangabad and Lucknow on 06.11.2004 and 02.02.2005.
4. In her fourth semester the Petitioner was asked by the Students union to organize the annual festival of the campus and in the process missed three days of her classes. She had 61% of attendance and according to Ordinance VII, of the Statutes and Ordinances the Dean/Professor in charge is empowered to condone the attendance since she was working for the institution.
5. The Petitioner submitted her form to appear in the fourth semester; she received her admit card on time. She avers about not being allowed to appear in the first paper; she was sent back from the institution. The Petitioner allegedly was issued roll number for the second examination, a few minutes of the commencement of her exams. The Respondents allegedly took another 15 minutes to find her a vacant seat. The Petitioner alleges that the same thing happened for her third paper too, but no extra time was allowed to her to complete the paper. She avers that she cleared two out of the four subjects, in which she was allowed to appear. The Petitioner submits that the result showed that she has passed or qualified in 14 subjects out of 19 but actually it is 14 subjects out of 17 as the other 2 papers were disturbed by the Respondents.
6. Ms. Dadwal, the petitioner appeared and conducted the proceedings. She reiterated the submissions made in the petition. It was further urged that the respondents, by their acts of omission, caused immense and irreparable prejudice to her. It was also urged that since she could appear only in 17 papers, the Court should declare that she had passed the fourth semester, as she passed or qualified in 14 papers (instead of 15 out of 20).
7. Mr. J.S. Rupal, learned Counsel for the Respondent denied the allegations and submitted that the admission process for the said fifth semester was over and hence the present petition has became infructuous. He further submitted that the petition was preferred only in November 2006 and by then the fifth semester classes were nearing completion.
8. The Learned Counsel urged that the Petitioner did not clear 15 papers out of 20 papers and possess the minimum attendance required which is 66% under Ordinance VII8(a) of the Delhi University ACT 1922 to enable her to appear in the firth term examination in December 2006. The Petitioner was not promoted to the fifth term; she cannot claim any relief. Learned Counsel also submitted that the Petitioner was issued an admit card which had a roll number and she has not annexed her fourth semester admit card.
9. The undisputed case is that the petitioner had about 61 per cent attendance. The norm, stipulated by Ordinance VII8(a) is 66 per cent of lectures in each of the subjects as also moot courts and practical training course. Appendix II to Ordinance V(2) and VII prescribes that a law student, to be promoted to fifth semester, should have passed at least in 15 out of 20 papers.
Ordinance VII(8)(a) reads as follows:
8(a) The student shall be required to put in minimum attendance of 66 per cent of the lectures on 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 per cent of the lectures in the aggregate of the semester examinations.
Provided further that no personal 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 hi discretion. The Professor-in-Charge shall have, ands 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 sent 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 in spite of warning, or, when the absence of the student is for such a long period that he cannot put in requisite percentage of attendance.
Appendix II to Ordinance V(2) & VII is as follows:
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 or Fifth Term Examination: Provided that he or she has not been detained on account of shortage of attendance in First, Third or Fifth Term Examination, 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 Examination taken together in case of promotion from II year to II year of the LLB course.
Note : The students eligible for admission to III/V Term must seek admission not later than two weeks from the date(s) of announcement of the results of LLB 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.
10. The petitioner’s allegation is that she could not attain the 66 per cent minimum attendance criteria, as she was asked to participate in student union activities; she also attended moot courts and legal aid camps. She has relied upon certificates issued by the Legal Aid Society, of the Campus Law Centre about her active participation in legal aid programmes and also other documents showing involvement in students union activities. As far as her clearing 14 out of 17 subjects is concerned, although the allegation that she was permitted to appear late in some exams, and not permitted to appear in paper XVI (Constitutional Law – II) is denied, yet during the hearing, she produced the response of the Principal Information Officer of the Campus Law Centre under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
11. The petitioner had sought information about the seating plan for students attempting in all the subjects of the fourth semester; Constitutional Law, paper XVI was the subject of examination on 01.05.06. The seating plan for room No. 26 indicated that 55 students had attempted the examination. The petitioner’s Roll number i.e. 60856, did not find mention in that examination hall; indeed it does not find mention in any other examination hall for that paper. What has, therefore, been established is that the petitioner lost the opportunity to appear in one paper. She was admittedly marked “absent” in that paper. To that extent, her grievance of not being permitted to appear in all the papers seems well founded. As regards the complaint that she was permitted to appear but later on in some other subjects, there is no evidence to establish that. Similarly, in the representations addressed by her on 17.10.06 and later, she has not complained that attendance was wrongly withheld. In these circumstances, the only grievance which can be considered by the Court is whether the respondents acted with justification in proceeding to detain her at the end of the fourth semester examination.
12. After the filing of this writ petition, this Court had permitted the petitioner to appear in the fifth semester (Suppl.) examinations conducted in May-June, 2007. The Court had also directed that the results would not be declared till further orders and that no special equities would arise in her favor by the permission to appear in the examinations.
13. The above facts and attendant circumstances would disclose that the petitioner fell marginally short of minimum attendance requirement spelt out by the Ordinance. There is some documentary evidence in support of her claim of having participated in legal aid camps and co-curricular activities of the students’ union. Apparently, the respondents have not given credit for it; in any case, the petitioner fell short of attendance by nine classes. At the same time, she was also not permitted to appear in all the examinations – the response to the query made by her under the Right to Information Act, indicated that her roll number was not included in the seating plan for that examination on 01.05.06. In these circumstances, the respondents’ action in marking her absent cannot be justified. I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that the petitioner’s results for the fifth semester examination should be declared forthwith. However, this cannot automatically mean that all attendance requirements have to be given a go by. She was not admitted to the 6th semester examination. She approached this Court on 21.10.06 and was unable to secure an interim order. In these circumstances, although this Court has got wide powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, such powers should be exercised with circumspection having regard to the express statutory conditions and the attendant circumstances. In this case, the issue is one of compliance with attendance norms. If this Court, at this stage were to permit the petitioner to appear in the 6th semester without her having ever been admitted to it, it would be violating the attendance requirements and all other conditions. At the same time, denial of any relief would result in loss of two years – the Petitioner would be relegated to the second year, and would be eligible for promotion to final year in 2008. The Court, therefore, has to strike a balance and mould the relief, to secure the ends of justice.
14. In the above circumstances, following directions are issued:
(1) The Faculty of Law, namely, the third respondent shall declare the results of the fifth semester examination (Suppl.) in which the petitioner appeared, within a week from today;
(2) The petitioner shall be admitted to the fifth semester. It shall be open to her to appear in the examinations/tests conducted by the respondents in respect of the subjects which she has not cleared in accordance with the Ordinance and statutes;
(3) The petitioner shall be permitted to make up the deficiency of attendance if any in the fifth semester and shall be admitted to the 6th semester at the end of the present term, in January, 2008. Thereafter, subject to her fulfillling the attendance norms and other conditions, she shall be permitted to appear in the 6th semester examinations.
The petition is disposed off in terms of the above directions. No costs.
Order dusty.