Delhi High Court
Avanija Sundaramurti vs University Of Delhi And Anr. on 9 February, 2007
Equivalent citations: 139(2007)DLT220
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
Bench: Badar Durrez Ahmed
JUDGMENT Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.
Page 0744
1. The question that arises in this petition is whether the attendance is to be counted from the date of commencement of classes or from the date of admission of a student to the first semester of the LLB course offered by the Law Faculty of Delhi University.
2. The facts are that the petitioner appeared in the entrance examination for admission to the said course. The said entrance examination for the academic sessions 2005-2006 was held by the Law Faculty some time in June, 2005. The petitioner ranked 35th in the order of merit in the said entrance examination. Counselling for the same was concluded on 22.7.2005. The petitioner has been called for counselling because of her position in the order on merit. Unfortunately, the result of her BA (Honours) in Journalism had not been declared till then. The said examination was also conducted by the Delhi University. On 22.7.2005, at the time of counselling, she was unable to produce her mark sheet/provisional certificate as the results had not been declared. As a result of which she did not secure admission at that point of time. Apparently, her result was declared on 1.8.2005. When she approached the Law Faculty after the declaration of her results, because she had the merit, the University ultimately granted her admission on 20.9.2005. The lectures for the first semester commenced on 1.8.2005.
3. The case of the petitioner is that she could not attend any lecture between 1.8.2005 to 20.9.2005 because she was not admitted to the said course. It is her case that after she was admitted, she had attended virtually 100% of the lectures offered. It is an admitted position that, as per her attendance record, she would have about 45% attendance in respect of the total number of lectures delivered between 1.8.2005 and the conclusion of the first semester. It is also an admitted position that if the lectures delivered between 1.8.2005 to 20.9.2005 are excluded then the petitioner would have more than 66% attendance in the lectures in the aggregate for the period 20.9.2005 till the conclusion of the first semester. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the period between 1.8.2005 to 20.9.2005 ought to be excluded in computing the attendance of the petitioner. This writ petition has proceeded on the assumption that the attendance requirement of 66% is to be construed in the context of the lectures delivered in the first semester alone. The issue whether the attendance is to be taken semester wise or year wise is the subject matter of other writ petitions which we need not to go into as this petition can be disposed of on the assumption that the requirement of attendance is semester-wise.
4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the University contended that the attendance must be calculated on the basis of the total number of lectures delivered during the entire semester irrespective of the fact as to when the petitioner got admission. Because, if a student does not attend 66% of the lectures delivered during the entire semester then he/she cannot be Page 0745 regarded as a student having undergone a regular course of study in the papers offered in the said semester.
5. After hearing the counsel for the parties, it is clear that the admission was granted to the petitioner only on 20.9.2005. It is obvious that prior to that date, the petitioner could not have attended any lecture. Even if it is assumed that she sneaked into the lecture hall, her attendance could not have been marked. I am in agreement with the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner cannot be penalized for something which was beyond her control. She could not have attended the lectures offered between 1.8.2005 to 20.9.2005 because she had not been admitted to the said course. Her delayed admission was also not her fault. At the time when she was called for counseling, the very same University had not yet declared her results for the BA Examinations which she had taken. As a result of the non-declaration of the result, the petitioner did not get admission at the time of counselling on 22.7.2005. It is only after the results were declared on 1.8.2005 that the petitioner again approached the University in an attempt to secure admission which she was entitled to because she was ranked 35th in the order of merit in the entrance examination. The Law Faculty granted her admission on 20.9.2005 and after that date she has, admittedly, been regular in attending the lectures and her percentage of attendance during the period 20.9.2005 till the end of the term is more than 90%. In these circumstances, I feel that it would be inequitable not to permit the petitioner to take the examinations of the first semester. By virtue of an interim order, this Court had permitted the petitioner to take the examinations subject to the outcome of this writ petition. Now, this writ petition is being disposed of with the direction that only the number of lectures delivered after 20.9.2005 shall be taken into account for computing her attendance percentage. The consequential effect is that she has legitimately qualified for the examinations of the first semester. She would be deemed to have undergone a regular course of study in respect of the first semester. The Law Faculty shall, accordingly, declare her result for the First Semester.
5. It is made clear that this decision has been given only in respect of a case falling under the category of "new admissions" after the entrance test for the first semester of the LLB course. It is also made clear that the decision has gone in favor of the petitioner because the petitioner could not attend the lectures prior to 20.9.2005 on account of circumstances beyond her control.
This petition stands allowed. No order as to costs.