Karnataka High Court
Girish Patel N vs Karnataka State Law University on 8 November, 2024
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:45366
WP No. 22807 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 22807 OF 2024 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
GIRISH PATEL N
S/O NAGARAJ D K
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
STUDENT OF: ST JOSEPHS COLLEGE OF LAW
R/AT NO 04, DANDUPALYA, HOSKOTE 562114
UNIVERSITY REGISTRATION NUMBER 45519441015
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. TRIVIKRAM S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY
REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR (EVALUATION)
NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI 580025
2. ST JOSEPH'S COLLEGE OF LAW
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL
FIELD MARSHAL K M CARIAPPA ROAD
Digitally signed BENGALURU 560025
by SHWETHA
RAGHAVENDRA
Location: HIGH ...RESPONDENTS
COURT OF (BY SRI. SARITHA KULKARNI.,ADVOCATE FOR R1;
KARNATAKA SRI. M.N. UMA SHANKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT DIRECTING THE R-1
TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO WRITE THE EXAMINATION OF
SUBJECTS MENTIONED IN THE TABLE BELOW, COMMENCING FROM
24.08.2024 OF THE 10TH SEMESTER LL.B COURSE, AS PER THE
TIMETABLE ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY ON 08.08.2024
SL.NO. SUBJECT SUBJECT DATE OF
CODE EXAMINATION
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:45366
WP No. 22807 of 2024
1 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW 7047 24.08.2024
2 LANDLAWS 7050 30.08.2024
3. WHITE COLLAR CRIME 7049 27.08.2024
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs;
a. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondent No.1 to permit the petitioner to write the examination of subjects mentioned in the table below, commencing from 27.08.2024 of the 10th semester LL.B Course, as per the timetable issued by the university on 8th August 2024.
Sl.no. Subject Subject Date of
Code examination
1 Environmental law 7047 24.08.2024
2 Landlaws 7050 30.08.2024
3. White Collar Crime 7049 27.08.2024
b. To grant any such other relief or order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has not been permitted to take up the 10th semester LLB Course Examination on account of lack of attendance.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:45366 WP No. 22807 of 2024
3. The submission in this regard by Sri.Trivikram., learned counsel for the petitioner is that; 3.1. In terms of the Regulations more particularly Regulation 13, though 70% attendance is compulsory, an exception is made that the student who has attended not less than 65% of the classes in each of the subject may be permitted to keep the term for reasons to be recorded in writing and to the satisfaction of the Principal of the college or the Dean of the faculty and as such there was a discretion vested with the college to permit the petitioner to keep the term with the average of 65% of attendance.
3.2. In this regard, he submits that insofar as Environmental Law is concerned, the petitioner has an attendance of 69.23%, Land Laws attendance of 62.86%, and White Collar Crimes attendance of 68.18%. If the average is taken, it is a little over 65%, and as such, the -4- NC: 2024:KHC:45366 WP No. 22807 of 2024 respondent-college principal could have passed necessary orders permitting the petitioner to keep the Term.
4. Sri.M.N.Uma Shankar., learned counsel for respondent No.2-College submits that apart from the aforesaid three subjects, the petitioner had to attend 22 classes of Moot Court which has not been attended, in its entirety and only eight classes were attended bringing the attendance to 36.36% and if average of all the four subjects is taken it is less than 65% and there is no discretion vested with the Principal or the Dean of faculty to permit the petitioner to keep the term since the attendance is less than 65%.
5. In reply thereto, Sri.Trivikarm., learned counsel for the petitioner would submits that; 5.1. The petitioner is not required to attend Moot Court classes, and attendance cannot be taken into consideration. In this regard, he relies upon the objective of the Clinical Course, -5- NC: 2024:KHC:45366 WP No. 22807 of 2024 namely Moot Court Exercise and Internship, and submits that there is no requirement for attendance mentioned in the said course overview.
5.2. In this regard he also relies on the email dated 27.7.2024 and submits that, if a student has successfully completed an internship and a certificate is issued by the employer in that regard on the employer's letterhead in such case 40% overall attendance would be sufficient and in this case the petitioner having more than 40% attendance, the petitioner's candidacy should be accepted.
5.3. The relevant portion of the said email is extracted hereunder for easy reference;
"Your attendance will be processed only on receiving the above documents to the satisfaction of the Placement Officer. You must maintain a minimum attendance of 40% overall in order to avail the attendance for the period of assessment internship. You must ensure you appear for your internal assessment as well."-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:45366 WP No. 22807 of 2024 5.4. Based on the above he submits that attendance for moot Court is not compulsory and even if it were to be so, since the Petitioner has done his internship, 40% attendance overall would be sufficient and neither the college nor university can insist on 70% minimum attendance.
6. Heard Sri.Trivikarm., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt.Saritha Kulkarni., learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri.M.N.Uma Shankar., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-college. Perused papers.
7. I am unable to accept the submission of Sri.Trivikarm., learned counsel for the petitioner in bifurcating Moot Court from the other subjects. So long as any classes are held for any subject, attendance is recorded, that records of attendance would have to be taken into consideration for all purposes under the regulation governing the course, more particularly Regulation 13.
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:45366 WP No. 22807 of 2024
8. If all the subjects are taken into consideration, the average attendance of the petitioner is much less than 65%. Even the principal of the college or the Dean of the faculty college or the Dean of the faculty could not pass any such order.
9. The minimum attendance being required at 70%, an exception has been carved out only at the discretion of the principal of the college or the Dean, which also cannot be excised if the attendance is less than 65%.
10. In so far as the contention that, if the internship has been completed, a minimum attendance of 40% would be sufficient, having gone through the said email as extracted hereinabove, it is seen that during the period of assessment internship, a minimum attendance of 40% would be sufficient.
11. It, therefore, appears that the college is permitting its students to take up internships during the time when the academic session is in progress, and it is during that period that a minimum of 40% attendance is to be maintained by the student in the college. The same does not mean that if an -8- NC: 2024:KHC:45366 WP No. 22807 of 2024 internship is completed by a student, the student can have 40% attendance overall.
12. Be that as it may, even this action on part of the college is not permissible since the university has categorically informed the colleges that during the academic session internship should not be permitted as part of the course. It being different if the students were to do internship after the college hours/classes.
13. There are no other grounds which have been made out which could justify the petitioner's absence except to contend that attendance to Moot Court classes is not compulsory. There being no justifiable reason for the absence of the petitioner and being of the opinion that all classes conducted by the college are required to be attended to, the petitioner not making out any grounds, the petition stands dismissed.
SD/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SR, List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5