Delhi HC Directs DU To Re-Admit Law Student Who Was Detained From Sitting For LL.B. First Term Exam Due To Attendance Shortage
|The Delhi High Court directed the University of Delhi (DU) to re-admit a law student with 2024-2027 batch as he was detained from sitting for LL.B. first term examination due to shortage of attendance.
The said student filed an appeal against Faculty of Law, University of Delhi and sought his readmission, on the ground that the deficiency in attendance was attributable to him being afflicted with disease.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Amit Bansal said, “The concern for maintaining high legal standards can perhaps be melded with Ordinance IV by reading into Article 5(b) the following: “the power to readmit students detained due to shortfall in attendance is confined to cases where absence is on account of genuine reasons such as illness and any other reason beyond the student’s control”. … The University is directed to re-admit the appellant with the batch of 2024-2027 students [which we are told begins in August 2024], by making suitable adjustment as suggested by BCI.”
The Bench noted that the power of readmission concerning students who failed to meet the stipulated attendance criteria is vested in the University by Article 5(b) of Ordinance IV.
Senior Advocate (Amicus Curiae) Rajshekar Rao appeared for the appellant while Advocate Mohinder J.S. Rupal appeared for the respondents.
In this case, the appellant’s submission was that since his absence from classes was due to the reasons beyond his control, he should be re-admitted to the first term of the LL.B. course without having to take the entrance examination afresh. He stated that his condition should not be equated with those cases where students are detained for failure to meet the prescribed attendance threshold due to other reasons. He failed to meet the threshold attendance criteria of 70% because he had developed psoriasis. The appellant was not seeking to be promoted to the second term without being instructed in subjects prescribed for the first term.
The relief sought by the appellant was limited to not having to take the entrance exam once again. However, his writ petition before the Single Bench was dismissed. The Bar Council of India (BCI) has taken a position that once a student is found eligible and is accorded admission to pursue legal education, his/her candidature/admission should not be cancelled by the concerned university/college if the student, in rare circumstances albeit for genuine reasons, fails to meet the attendance requirement. Whereas, the University asserted that if students do not meet the prescribed threshold criteria for attendance in the first term, they would have to seek admission afresh, irrespective of the reasons for absence.
The High Court in view of the above facts observed, “… it is our opinion that the power of readmission concerning students who failed to meet the stipulated attendance criteria is vested in the University by Article 5(b) of Ordinance IV. … Given Article 5(b) was inserted in Ordinance IV on 27.07.2012, much after the AC amended Appendix II to Ordinance V, it stood superseded by Ordinance IV. … The University’s contention that the provision for readmission in Ordinance IV was inapplicable to professional courses is flawed and hence is rejected.”
The Court said that the University erred in conflating the fate of students who, for genuine reasons, fail to meet the attendance criteria with those who play truant without explanation.
The Court, therefore, directed to re-admit the appellant with the batch of 2024-2027 students by making suitable adjustments as suggested by BCI.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the decision of Single Judge.
Cause Title- Tripurari Kumar Jha v. Faculty of Law, University of Delhi & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:4564-DB)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate (Amicus Curiae) Rajshekar Rao, Advocates Harshil Wason, and Dushyant Kaul.
Respondents: Advocates Mohinder J.S. Rupal and Hardik Rupal.