LPA No.208/2009 Page 1 of 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 208/2009 & CM Nos.6719-20/2009 ANKIT SINGH ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Lalit Kumar, Mr. Sunil Dalal and Mr. S.S. Khatri, Advocates. versus UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. J.S. Rupal, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL O R D E R % 11.05.2009 CM No. 6720/2009 (for exemption) in LPA 208/2009 1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. LPA 208/2009 & CM No.6719/2009 (for stay) 3. The appellant (original petitioner in the writ petition) is aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 5th May, 2009. The appellant had not been permitted to appear in the B.A. Programme first year examination on account of shortage of attendance. The learned Single Judge has observed that in the petition, there was no averment as to the percentage of lectures attended by the petitioner. However, during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant stated before the learned Single Judge that the appellant had attended 17% lectures and had absented himself from 83% of the lectures. LPA No.208/2009 Page 2 of 3 4. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that as per the ordinance, the appellant being a sports person was entitled to the benefit of exclusion to the extent of 1/3rd of the total number of lectures delivered. Even if the appellant is given the said benefit, he does not fulfill the minimum attendance norm. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has drawn our attention to a letter dated 28th April, 2009 (Annexure-L/3), whereby the Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association (in short ‘HPCA’) has certified that the appellant has attended camps of the ‘Under-19 HPCA Team’ and that he had also represented the HPCA in the ‘Under-19 Category’. It is submitted on behalf of counsel for respondent No. 1, that the appellant has not annexed any document to show that these camps were attended by the appellant with the consent/permission of the respondents. 6. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the appellant himself has admitted that he has not attended more than 17% of the lectures and has absented himself from 83% of the lectures. If that is the admitted position, then clearly the appellant is barred by the Statute from taking the examination due to shortage of attendance. Even if the story of the appellant is accepted that he actually did attend these camps/matches, it still does not help the appellant as he is below the minimum cut-off percentage as stipulated by the Statute. 7. To ensure standards of discipline, minimum attendance norms LPA No.208/2009 Page 3 of 3 have been prescribed. Persons who participate in sports and other activities are entitled to exclusion not exceeding 1/3rd of the total number of lectures. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that dilution of standards will have an adverse effect on the reputation of the University and value of the degree. 8. We find no merit in the appeal as no ground has been made out to warrant any interference with the order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The pending application also stands disposed of. CHIEF JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL, J. MAY 11, 2009 Sb/RS