Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jitesh Kandare vs National Law University, Jod., & Anr on 24 April, 2012
Author: Arun Mishra
Bench: Arun Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) No.324/2012
Jitesh Kandare
Vs.
The National Law University Jodhpur & Anr.
DATE OF ORDER : 24.4.2012
HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI ARUN MISHRA
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI Mr. P.R.Mehta, for the appellant.
Mr. M.S.Singhvi, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Hemant Dutt, for the respondents.
<><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The intra-court appeal has been preferred as against the decision dated 20.4.2012 rendered by the Single Bench dismissing the C.W.P. No. 3869/2012.
The appellant/petitioner who is a student of 3rd year B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) in the National Law University, Jodhpur is incumbent for 6th Semester Examination which is being held with effect from today. The appellant was admittedly having attendance of 40%Classes as out of 443 Classes he has attended 177 Classes. There is power with the University to condone absence of 5% Classes in terms of proviso to Rule 12 of Chapter IV of the Bar Council of India Rules (in short 'the Rules'). Otherwise attendance of 70% is necessary and relaxation can be given by the University to the extent of 5% and accordingly 65% attendance is necessary. The Rule framed by the Bar Council of India is mandatory.
The Single Bench has held that it is not open to the respondent University to permit condonation of absence beyond the permissible limit. The writ application has been dismissed. Aggrieved thereby the intra court appeal has been preferred.
Mr. P.R.Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that relaxation has been granted to 77 students to appear in the examination by the National Law University who are having short attendance of approximately 15% of required minimum 70% attendance and there is notice issued on 23.4.2012 to conduct extra classes for those students who are having marginally short attendance. They have been provisionally allowed to appear at the end term examination for various semesters and they will have to attend the extra classes during 3rd to 10th May, 2012 to make up shortage of attendance. According to him similar treatment ought to have been extended to the appellant who is having 40% of the attendance because once relaxation has been given to as many as 77 students as mentioned in the notice dated 23.4.2012 the appellant should have been meted out similar treatment.
Mr. M.S.Singhvi, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Hemant Dutt has submitted that the students who have been provisionally allowed to appear at the end term examination were having attendance marginally short of 66% and for them extra classes have to be held and case of the appellant is distinguishable and there are 12 students who are having less than 50% attendance, they have been totally debarred from taking semester examination due to shortage of attendance. Case of petitioner is similar. He has also submitted that the appellant cannot compare his case with those who have been given relaxation vide notice dated 23.4.2012.
As per Rule 12 contained in Part-IV of the Bar Council of India Rules, it is necessary that 70% of the Classes should have been attended by the students and the relaxation can be given to the extent of 5%. Rule 12 of Part IV of the Rules reads as under:-
"Rule 12. End Semester Test:- No student of any of the degree program shall be allowed to take the end semester test in a subject if the student concerned has not attended minimum of 70% of the classes held in the subject concerned as also the moot court room exercise, tutorials and practical training conduct in the subject taken together:
Provided that if a student for any exceptional reasons fall to attend 70% of the classes held in any subject, the Dean of the University or the Principal of the Centre of Legal Education, as the case may be, may allow the student to take the test if the student concerned attended at least 65% of the classes held in the subject concerned and attended 70% of the classes in all the subjects taken together the similar power shall rest with the Vice Chancellor or Director of a National Law University, or his authorized representative in the absence of the Dean of Law:
Provided further that a list of such students allowed to take the test with reasons recorded be forwarded to the Bar Council of India."
The attendance of the appellant is extremely short. He is having admittedly only 40% of the attendance. The circumstance that he suffered with fracture and was hospitalised cannot come to his rescue as in such courses conducted by National Law University without actually undertaking classes to the extent laid down by the Bar Council of India, the appellant cannot stake claim to appear in the semester examination. It is in the interest of student to attend the requisite number of classes and then to appear in the examination. The case of the students who have been given relaxation vide notice dated 23.4.2012 is distinguishable. They were having attendance marginally short of 65%. As such extra classes for them have to be conducted. The attendance of the appellant is very much short. The appellant has not been able to complete requisite attendance because he could not admittedly attend classes for 2½ months approximately i.e. from 1.1.2012 to 12.3.2012. That apart none of the students who were having below 50% of the attendance have been allowed to appear in examination and as many as 12 students have been totally debarred from taking examination. Even if we take a sympathetic view as the appellant met with an accident, it would not be in his interest to stake his claim to appear in examination without attending the requisite number of classes which is necessary under the Rules framed by Bar Council of India.
Consequently, the intra court appeal being bereft of force is hereby dismissed. D.B.Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 6203/2012 also stands dismissed.
(KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI),J. (ARUN MISHRA), CJ. /sushil/-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) No.1873/2011 Surendra Singh & Ors.
Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
DATE OF ORDER : 24.4.2012 HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI Mr. Tanwar Singh Rathore, for the appellants.
<><><> Defects pointed out by the office are waived. The intra court appeal has been preferred questioning the legality of the order dated 4.8.2011 passed by the Single Bench dismissing C.W.P. No. 7075/2011.
The appellants/petitioners appeared in Adeeb Examination held in the year 2010 and 2009 conducted by the respondent Zamia Urdu, Aligarh and result was declared thereafter. Their qualification was not accepted as qualification awarded by an institution for appearing in the Class-XI vide order dated 5.7.2011 passed by the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan. Reliance was placed by Single Bench on the judgment of Division Bench decision of this Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Firdos Tarannum (2006(1) RLW-
827) in which reference has been made to notification dated 24.4.1993 pointing out that thereby validity of degree/certificate issued by Zamia Urdu, Aligarh has been rejected. The writ application was filed for treating the qualification as valid one and to give prospective effect to the order dated 5.7.2011. The Single Bench has dismissed the writ application. Aggrieved thereby the intra court appeal has been preferred.
This Court has already laid down way back in 2006 that such qualification obtained from Zamia Urdu, Aligarh is not recognised one in State of Rajasthan Vs. Firdos Tarannum (supra). Reliance was placed on a notification dated 24.4.1993. The Division Bench of this Court has laid down that qualifications issued by Zamiya Urdu, Aligarh is not a qualification awarded by an institution which had a legal sanction behind it. Thus, the submission raised by the petitioners on order dated 5.7.2011 has been rightly rejected by the Single Bench. We do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Single Bench.
Consequently, the intra court appeal being bereft of force is hereby dismissed in limine. D.B.Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 19057/2011 also stands dismissed. (KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI),J. (ARUN MISHRA), CJ. /sushil/-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) No.787/2007 State of Raj. & Ors.
Vs.
Pukh Raj
DATE OF ORDER : 24.4.2012
HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI ARUN MISHRA
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI Mr. Sandeep Bhandawat, for the appellants.
<><><> The intra court appeal has been preferred as against the order dated 8.5.2007 passed by the Single Bench allowing C.W.P. No. 1417/1995.
It was submitted before the Single Bench that declaration under Section 6 has not been published which is mandatory requirement. Consequently, the Single Bench has set aside the acquisition as no positive statement was made whether publication was made in the official gazette. Declaration issued under Section 6 published in the official gazette has been placed on record as Annexure A/A/1 by the appellant along with appeal. There is nothing to doubt official gazette about the publication of declaration. Thus, the order passed by the Single Bench cannot be sustained.
The intra court appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Single Bench is set aside. As there are other grounds which have not been dealt with, we remit the case to the Single Bench to decide the writ application afresh by a reasoned order.
(KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI),J. (ARUN MISHRA), CJ. /sushil/-