Delhi High Court - Orders
Arun vs Faculty Of Law University Of Delhi And ... on 1 September, 2023
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~47
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8028/2023 & CM APPL 45371/2023
ARUN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajat Bhatia, Mr. Karan Ahuja, Ms.
Nandini Aggarwal and Mr. Nishant Sharma,
Advocates
Versus
FACULTY OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ANR
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Mr. Hardik
Rupal and Mr. Sachpreet Kaur, Advocates for
University of Delhi
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
ORDER
% 01.09.2023 CM APPL 45371/2023 (early hearing)
1. The present application has been filed under Section 151 CPC on behalf of the petitioner seeking early hearing of the petition.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the petition is heard today itself.
3. The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 8028/2023
1. The petitioner in the instant writ petition has prayed for directions to restrain the respondents from cancelling the admission of the petitioner from the batch of 2022-25, LL.B. Course at Law Centre-II, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi. The further directions are sought for, to promote the petitioner to second semester for the said course.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/09/2023 at 15:38:04 -2-
2. A perusal of the facts would indicate that the name of the petitioner is mentioned in detained candidates of the first-term 2022-23. As per the prospectus of the University, clause relating to the Re-admission Rules specifically provides that there shall be no re-admission in the LL.B. first- term under any circumstances including detention for shortage of attendance in that term.
3. It is, thus, seen that in the instant case, since the petitioner has been detained in the first semester on account of shortage of attendance, therefore, there cannot be any direction to either promote him to the second semester or to restrain the University from cancelling his admission. The fact remains that by virtue of the fact that the petitioner has been detained, his admission stood cancelled. There is no challenge to the aforesaid aspect as well.
4. It be also noted that when the Rule relating to detention in automatic cancellation on account of shortage of attendance came to be challenged before this court in W.P.(C) No. 41/2012 titled as Samadhiya Vevek Kumar v. University of Delhi and Anr., this Court in terms of the order dated 10.05.2012 affirmed the said Rule and did not interfere with the same. Paragraph nos.6 to 10 of the said decision reads as under:-
"6. We are also of the opinion that a student who is not able to meet the attendance criteria in the very first semester can always take the admission test and seek fresh admission on the basis thereof in the next academic year. Moreover, we are unable to find any right in a student who has failed to meet the attendance criteria, to seek re-admission.
7. The counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the petitioner was prevented from attending the classes for reasons beyond his control and an exception should be made in his case. It is argued that owing to the result of the This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/09/2023 at 15:38:04 -3- qualifying examination of the petitioner having been declared late, the admission of the petitioner was delayed.
8. As far as the aforesaid aspect is concerned, we find that the respondent has computed attendance of the petitioner from the date of his admission only. Even for that period the petitioner could not secure the minimum prescribed attendance.
9. Insofar as the other reasons urged by the petitioner for being unable to attend the classes the Bar Council of India has stipulated the attendance requirement of 660% which has to be strictly followed as has been decided by this Court in series of Judgments (S.N. Singh Vs. Union of India 106 (2003) DLT 329 and Gagandeep Kaur Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi MANU/DE/3049/2010.
10. We may also mention that the limits of interference by this Court, in matters of education, particularly of policy, are limited and once we have found reasonable basis for a Rule and particularly a Rule qua attendance, we are not willing to substitute our opinion in place of that of the experts in the field of education."
5. In view of the aforesaid, no interference is called for. The petition is accordingly dismissed alongwith pending application.
6. The date already fixed, i.e. 21.09.2023 stands cancelled.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J SEPTEMBER 1, 2023 p'ma This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/09/2023 at 15:38:04