LPA/361/2013 of S VIJAYARANI Vs UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI%Judgment delivered on: 13.08.2013

+LPA No.361/2013 & CM Nos.8453-54/2013

S. VIJAYARANI

.....Appellant

Versus

UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS..…RespondentsAdvocates who appeared in this case:For the Appellant: Dr K.S. Chauhan, Mr Ajit Kumar Ekka andMr Ravi Prakash.For the Respondent: Mr Mohinder J. S. Rupal.CORAM:-HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED, ACTINGCHIEF JUSTICEHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUJUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1.This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.05.2013delivered by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.3420/2013.The appellant had filed the said writ petition being aggrieved by the letterdated 20.05.2013 whereby the appellant was informed that her detention inthe LLB first semester had been confirmed and that the provisional

admission and continuance given to her with respect to the second semesterstood cancelled with immediate effect.By virtue of the said letter, theappellant was debarred from appearing in the remaining examination of theLLB IInd term for the session 2012-13. The impugned letter is as under:-

“LAW CENTRE-II(FACULTY OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF DELHI)A.R.S.D. College (Building)DHAULA KUAN, NEW DELHI-110021Ph.-24111491, Fax- 27667052

Urgent/Out todayBy Hand

Ref.No./LC-I/2013/264

May 20[th], 2013

MS S. Vijayarani,Roll No.96609, 96655Law Centre-II

Sir/Madam,

You were permitted to appear in the LL.B. I/III/IV/VTerm Examination held in November/December, 2012 againstan undertaking that you were provisionally permitted to appearin the Examination for LL.B. I/III/V Term, 2012-13. Later onPending decision of the University you were allowed to takeadmission to LL.B. II/IV/VI Term strictly on provisionally basiswith clear understanding that whatever will be the decision ofthe University the same will be binding to you. Now we havereceived the decision from the University via letter No.F.OL/356. dt. 15[th]May, 2013 that your request for condonationof your shortage of attendance and cancellation of yourdetention has not been accepted/approved by the University.Hence your detention in the LL.B. I/III/V Term has beenconfirmed and consequently your provisional admission and

continuance in LL.B. II/IV/VI Term stands cancelled withimmediate effect.

Therefore, you are debarred hereby from appearing in theremaining examination of LL.B. II/IV/VI Term (Annual) 2012-13.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully

Sd/-Prof. Poonam SaxenaProfessor-in-Charge”

2.The appellant did not have the requisite attendance in the firstsemester of the LLB course. The reasons for which were genuine. She hada complication with regard to the delivery of her child and for medicalreasons she could not attend the lectures to comply with the requirement of66.6% attendance.Even if the relaxed criteria of having overall 66.6%attendance rather than having the said percentage of attendance in each ofthe subjects was applied, she would still not qualify for appearing in theexamination of the Ist term. However, despite the fact that her attendancewas less than the required percentage, she was provisionally permitted toappear in the Ist term LLB examination held in December, 2012. However,the decision to permit her to appear provisionally in the said examinationwas taken at stage when examination in respect of four papers had alreadybeen conducted and, therefore, it was possible for her to sit in the 5[th]paperonly. She has passed in that paper having obtained 58% marks.

3.Pending decision of the University with regard to her attendance, theappellant was permitted to take admission in the IInd term of the LLBcourse on the understanding that the decision of the University would bebinding on her.

4.Thereafter, the appellant attended lectures in the IInd term andinsofar as this term was concerned, she had the requisite attendance. Shewas also given an admission ticket for appearing in the second semesterexamination which was held in May, 2013. Infact she had appeared in thefirst four papers of the IInd term when she received the letter dated20.05.2013 whereby she was debarred from appearing in the remainingexamination of the IInd term of the LLB course.In other words, theappellant had appeared in four papers out of the five papers for the IIndterm. We are informed by Mr Rupal that she has passed in all these fourpapers.

5.This appears to be hard case inasmuch as the appellant could nothave the requisite attendance in the first semester because of her medicalcondition and for no fault on her part. Yet because of the strict rules of theUniversity which have been confirmed by this Court from time to time, shewould not be entitled to appear in the LLB first semester examination. Thatbeing the case, her appearance in one paper of the first semester cannot betreated as regular.

6.The learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to letterdated 15.05.2013 issued by the Head and Dean of the Faculty of Law to theRegistrar, University of Delhi.In that letter, it is mentioned that fewstudents were allowed to write the examination provisionally in December,2012 on the recommendation of various officers and the result of some of

these students were declared. It was also indicated that by letter dated08.05.2013, the University had regularized only ten cases.On the otherhand, it was indicated that the admission in respect of fourteen cases wereconnected which included the case of the appellant. The learned counsel forthe appellant submitted that since ten cases were regularized, theappellant’s case also ought to be regularized.However, Mr Rupalappearing for the University pointed out that eight out of those ten caseswere concerned with late admissions on account of late declaration of thegraduation results, which is not the case here. The remaining two caseswere maternity cases, which is also not the case in the present matter. Thisis so because the delivery of the child in the case of the appellant took placesometime in 2010 and, therefore, it cannot be regarded as maternity case.There is no doubt that it was medical complication but no relaxation hasbeen provided with regard to such condition.

7.We are in agreement with Mr Rupal that the case of the appellant isdifferent from those ten cases which had been regularized by the Universityand, therefore, the appellant cannot take advantage of the said letter dated15.05.2013.

8.In this backdrop, we find that the appellant’s attendance in the firstsemester was below the requisite 66.6% and, therefore, she was not eligiblefor appearing in the first semester examination. That being the case, eventhough, she had passed in one paper in which she had appeared in the firstsemester that result cannot be taken into account.Consequently, in thesecond semester taken together she had passed in four papers which doesnot entitle her to move on to the third semester, therefore, we find no

infirmity with the impugned judgment delivered by the learned SingleJudge.

9.The appeal and all the pending applications are disposed of.

10.There shall be no order as to costs.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, ACJ

VIBHU BAKHRU, JAUGUST 13, 2013MK