09 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7652/2008 MANJIT SINGH ..... Petitioner Through In person. versus UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ANR. .... Respondent Through Mr. M.J.S. Rupal, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R % 27.05.2009 1. The petitioner, Mr. Manjit Singh, who appears in person was admitted to LLM course in Faculty of Law, University of Delhi in the academic year 2007-08. The said course is a three year course divided into six semesters. The petitioner has cleared two papers out of four papers in the first semester and claims promotion to the second year on the basis of promotion criteria mentioned in Bulletin of Information, 2007-08 for three year programme in clause (ii), which reads as under:- “(ii) No student shall be allowed to proceed from the Second Term of Third Term, i.e. from the first year to the second year unless he is declared to have passed in at least two out of the four courses offered by him in the First and Second Term together.” 2. The respondent University of Delhi and Faculty of Law do not dispute the aforesaid position but submit that the petitioner cannot be promoted as he does not have requisite 66% attendance in the first year. The factum that the petitioner does not have 66% attendance in the first year is not denied. The petitioner, however, submits that in view of the aforesaid clause in the Bulletin of Information, the petitioner has to be promoted even if he does not fulfill the minimum attendance norms as he has cleared two papers out of four papers in the first year. In this connection he relies upon Bulletin of Information published by Faculty of Law, University of Delhi in the academic year 2008-09, wherein express prohibition on failure to have requisite attendance is provided. 3. The relevant portion of Bulletin of Information, 2007-08 relating to attendance rules/norms reads as under: - “ATTENDANCE RULES 1. Students pursuing LL.M programme are required to attend 66% of the lectures in each subject including tutorials, seminary and discussion classes held during the academic years. 2. In exceptional cases for reasons to be recorded and communicated to the Bar Council of India, the Dean of the Faculty of Law may condone attendance short of those required by this Rule, if the student had attended 66% of the lectures in the aggregate per semester examinations.” (emphasis supplied) 4. The Bulletin of Information has further stipulated as under:- “2. Admission to LL.M. Programme will be made on the basis of an Entrance Test being conducted by the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi. Before filling in the Application Form for the Entrance Test for admission to the first year of LL.M. Programme, the candidate is advised to read the contents of this Prospectus carefully and also consult the Delhi University Act, 1992 and the Statutes, the Ordinances, Rules and Regulations made under them.” (emphasis supplied) 5. Clause 8(b) of Ordinance 2 (VII) of Delhi University Ordinances prescribes the following :- “In the case of students studying for the LL.M. Part I Examination, no student shall be deemed to have pursued a regular course of study unless:- (i) He has attended not less than two-thirds of the total number of lectures delivered during the academic year in which he has been admitted as a regular student, and (ii) He has submitted not less than seven essay of the requisite standard as prescribed by the Dean during the academic year” 4. Attendance norms are different from the promotion norms relating to number of papers which have to be cleared for promotion. The two norms operate in different fields. The promotion norms deal with the number of papers that have to be cleared by a student for promotion to the next semester/year. On the other hand, attendance norms prescribe minimum number of lectures one student/candidate has to attend in a given year. In the present case, the petitioner had appeared and cleared two papers in the first semester but because of shortage of attendance he was detained and not allowed to appear in the examination for the second semester. 5. The ordinance is a statutory subordinate legislation which is binding on the students. It cannot be ignored. Clause 8 (b) of Ordinance 2 (VII) incorporates a deeming clause which has to be given full effect to. On failure to have requisite attendance, the student is deemed not have pursued regular course. If the contention of the petitioner is to be accepted then a student may not attend even a single lecture in the second semester but will promote if he has cleared two papers in the first semester. A student has to fulfill both the minimum attendance norms as well as pass requisite number of papers. Both conditions have to be satisfied. The argument of the petitioner that he should be permitted to sit in the third semester examinations because he has cleared two papers out of 4 papers as per the Bulletin of information 2007-08, therefore does not have any merit and is liable to be rejected. I may note here that the petitioner has attended only 31.17% lectures in the second semester and the short fall is of about 35%. 6. The High Court of Delhi in S.N. Singh Vs. Union of Indian & Ors. 106 (2003) DLT 329 (DB) has reiterated to importance of attending lectures in LL.B. course. In the said case the Division Bench has observed as under:- “21. We find force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner n respect of the first four submissions noted by us above. A law course cannot be acquitted with a normal academic course. Attendance of lectures, tutorials and seminars is very essential to train the law students. Under the Advocates Act, 1961, the Bar Council of India has been empowered, amongst others, “to promote legal education and to lay down standards of such education”. The Bar Council of India has framed statutory rules which bind all institutions conferring LL.B. Degree Course which are recognized by the Bar Council of India. Section 4 of the Delhi University Act, 1922 empowers the University to confer degrees of students who have pursued a course of study in the University or in any college attached or affiliated to the University. No student can be deemed to have pursued a course of study who does not comply with the various requirements prescribed under the Act, Statue, Ordinances or Rules framed by the Academic Council. Needless to state that the Academic Council is the Supreme Academic Body of the University. Clause 8 of ordinance 7 clearly provides that no student shall be deemed to have pursued a regular course of study unless he has attended at least two-thirds of the total number of lectures delivered in each year. The proviso permits relaxation of shortage of attendance up to 10%. Thus, as per the attendance norms prescribed under the ordinances, pertaining to LL.B. Degree Course, shortage of attendance beyond 10% is not permissible. However, the Academic Council in exceptional cases is empowered to grant a further relaxation. The examination Rule framed by the Bar Council of India also provides for relaxation, but makes a different provision for relaxation. The Bar Council of India Rule requires 66% attendance in each paper and empowers relaxation in a particular paper, provided however total attendance in all the papers is 66%. The Academic Council decision to accept the Justice V.S. Deshpande Committee recommendation is thus a resolution limiting the exercise of power of relaxation unanimously adopted by the Academic Council. The Academic Council would thus be bound by its own resolution. The decision not to grant relaxation was a conscious decision taken for which even a high powered Committee was constituted and was taken in the interest of legal education.” 7. The said judgment has been followed in S.N. Singh Vs. University of Delhi, W.P.(C) No. 7701 of 2005 where the Division Bench of this court stated as follows: “In view of the aforesaid stand now taken by all the parties hereto, we are of the considered opinion that to be able to appear in the examination for obtaining the degree of LL.B, a student has to have a minimum attendance 66% of the lectures on each of the subjects. However there is a proviso added thereto that in exceptional cases for reasons to be recorded and communicated to the Bar Council of India the Dean of Faculty of Law and the principals of the Law Colleges shall have the power and the jurisdiction to condone attendance short of what is required by the rule, if the student have attended 66% of the Lectures in the aggregate for the semester of examination as the case may be. The aforesaid provision mandates that a candidate must have minimum attendance of 66% of the lectures on each of the subject to enable him to appear in the LL.B. examination, subject to the condition mentioned in the provision.” (emphasis supplied) 8. The said decision pertains to LLB course but the observations made therein disclose and indicate importance of attending lectures and need to adhere to the minimum attendance norms. 9. The petitioner submitted that he should be permitted and allowed to attend the second year classes on the principal of acquiescence and in this regard he has relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Shri Krishan Vs. The Kurukshetra University, AIR 1976 Supreme Court 376 and Sanatan Gauda Vs. Behrampur University AIR 1990 Supreme Court 1075. 10. In the present case, the petitioner had submitted fee for the second year on 25th July, 2008 and the classes started on 16th August, 2008. On 25th August, 2008, the respondents had issued show cause notice to the petitioner and after receiving reply of the petitioner, by order dated 12th September, 2008 the ‘provisional’ admission granted to the petitioner in the LLM three year course was cancelled. The decisions relied upon by the petitioner are in cases where the students were told at the last stage after studying and appearing in examination that they do not meet the eligibility criteria. In the present case the classes for second semester had started with effect from 16th August, 2008 and immediately thereafter show cause notice was issued and the “provisional” admission granted to the petitioner in the second year was cancelled. In the show cause notice issued to the petitioner he was asked not to attend classes, till decision. 11. The respondent University of Delhi in their additional affidavit have also clarified that attendance norms have not been relaxed except in two cases where students had produced medical certificates and the relaxation was given on the ground of illness. It is also pointed out in the additional affidavit that the other students, who did not fulfill the minimum attendance criteria were not promoted or allowed to sit in the examination. 12. In view of the above findings, I do not find merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed. The petitioner, however will be entitled to make a representation before the Vice Chancellor to attend classes in the second semester this year. If such representation is made, the same will be considered sympathetically and if the petitioner is permitted to attend the classes, I do not see any reason why he should not be permitted to appear in the examination for the second semester in 2009-2010. The writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. SANJIV KHANNA, J. MAY 27, 2009 NA/am