IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:15.9.2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN W.P.NO.11671 OF 2009 and M.P.No.2 of 2009 1.B.Jagadeesh 2.M.Devendran 3.R.JayaGanesh 4.R.Muneeshwaran 5.S.Kajendran .. Petitioners vs 1.The Registrar Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Govt. Law University Chennai 2.The Director of Legal Studies Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Govt. Law University Chennai 3.The Principal Dr.Ambedkar Govt. Law College Chennai .. Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to write the IV semester examination II year B.L.(Five years course)Dr.Ambedkar Govt. Law College, Chennai to secure the ends of justice. for petitioner : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu for respondents : Mr.V.M.G.Ramakannan (for R1 and R2) Mr.A.Suresh Government Advocate(Edn.) (for R3) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ORDER The prayer in the writ petition is for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to write the IV semester examination II year B.L.(Five years course), Dr.Ambedkar Government Law College, Chennai. 2. M.P.No.1 of 2009 is for a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioners to write the IV semester, II year B.L.(Five Years Course) examination to be held on 06.7.2009. M.P.No.2/2009 is for a direction to the third respondent to receive the fees and permit the petitioners to sit in the III year B.L.(Five years course). 3. The petitioners who are all the students of Dr.Ambedkar Government Law College (hereinafter referred to as "the Law College") have filed the above writ petition for a direction to permit them to write the IV semester examination of the II year B.L., (Five years course). According to them, they are studying in II year B.L., of Five years course at the Law College. They claimed that they have promptly attended the course and had written the examinations in the previous year. Due to some unforeseen circumstances an incident had occurred on 12.11.2008 within the Law College premises and the College was indefinitely closed due to law and order and security reasons and they were effectively prevented from attending the classes. After long interval, the classes were suddenly reopened on 31.3.2009 and all the students were having rural background and due to want of individual communications they could not attend the classes in time. After 20 days, they attended the classes during last week of April 2009 and thereafter, all the students paid the examination fees and hall tickets were also processed and the hall tickets were handed over to them. But it was noted that there is shortage of attendance for IV semester of II year B.L., students. The said action of the respondents is not supported by any reasons. The students were not put on notice about the sudden act of respondents preventing the students from appearing for the IV semester examination and the examination was scheduled to be held on 06.7.2009 and when the petitioners were not allowed to write the examination, there was irreparable loss and detrimental to their career. Therefore, they sought for a direction to permit them to appear for the examinations. In this regard they sent a representation on 22.6.2009, but the same is of no avail. Therefore, they have approached this Court by way of this writ petition for the relief abovementioned on the ground that the act of the respondents is arbitrary and the respondents ought to have considered the unforeseen events that took place on 12.11.2008 and the action of the respondents is unreasonable. 4. (i)The first respondent has filed counter and stated that at the outset, they denied all the averments except those that are https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ specifically admitted. In respect of paragraphs 2 and 3 of the affidavit of the petition the respondent has no remarks to offer. It is further stated that the classes were suddenly reopened on 31.3.2009 and after a long interval the petitioners has also attended the classes for nearly 20 days alone during the last week of April 2009. When the petitioner is aware that the College was reopened on 31.3.2009 he would have attended the classes from the date of reopening instead of blaming that he could not attend the classes due to want of individual communication. The Directorate of Legal Studies have given wide publicity of reopening of the Colleges through media. (ii) As per the rules of Bar Council of India under Part IV, section B, Rule 3 which reads as follows, "The students shall be required to put in a minimum attendance of 75% of lectures on each of the subjects as also at tutorials, moot courts and practical training course: Provided that in exceptional cases for reasons to be recorded and communicated to the Bar Council of India, the Dean of the Faculty of the Law and the Principal of Law Colleges may condone attendance short of those required by the Rule, if the student has attendance 66% of the lectures in the aggregate for the semester or examination as the case may be." the shortage of 66% attendance alone may be condoned. (iii) In the counter it is also stated that the U.G.Board of Studies Meeting held on 22.06.2004 resolved as follows: "It is resolved to recommend to the Syndicate that if a student fails to earn sufficient attendance in one semester, the student will not be eligible to take that semester examination and will not be allowed to continue in next semester and the student must redo the entire semester in which he/she lacked sufficient attendance and only on completion of that semester in which he/she has to redo, will be allowed to continue the next semester." Further the 53rd Special Meeting of the Syndicate held on 22.6.2004 resolved to approve the abovementioned resolution. (iv) It is the stand of the respondent that no student will be allowed to write the examination unless he has earned the minimum required attendance for that semester and he has to redo the entire https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ semester in which he had lack of attendance. This University is strictly adhering to the attendance regulations prescribed by the Bar Council of India and the same is being followed by the affiliated Law Colleges also. Therefore, the respondent has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition with exemplary costs. 5. (i) The third respondent, the Principal of the Law College has filed counter. It is stated that the petitioners approached this Court for a direction to write the IV semester examination. By the order of this Court dated 01.7.2009 in W.P.No.11671/2009, as an interim measure, the respondents were directed to permit the petitioners to write the IV semester II Year B.L.(Five Years course) examination scheduled to commence from 6.7.2009 and it is also made clear that the results of the examination shall not be published until further orders and that the interim order was passed subject to the result of the writ petition and also that the interim order shall not confer any additional rights on the petitioners and the petitioners could not make any further claims based on equity. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the petitioners were permitted to write the examinations and this writ petition is pending. (ii) In the counter it is also stated that the petitioners have failed to secure the attendance as per the University regulations. As per the order of the University in Letter No.2308/Aca/Regr/A1/2009 dated 25.6.2009 the number of working days in the semester was fixed as 75. However, the petitioners have earned very low attendance as mentioned below: S. No. Name of the petitioner Attendance earned by the petitioners during the month Number of days attendance earned by the petitioner Jan- 09 Mar- 09 Apr- 09 May -09 June -09 1 B.Jagadeesh, 2 B.L. 2 0 0 7 10 19 2 M.Devendran 0 0 0 7 10 17 3 R.Jayaganesh 0 0 3 13 10 26 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ S. No. Name of the petitioner Attendance earned by the petitioners during the month Number of days attendance earned by the petitioner Jan- 09 Mar- 09 Apr- 09 May -09 June -09 4 R.Muneeshawaran 0 0 2 7 10 19 5 S.Kajendran 0 0 0 7 10 17 As per the Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University Rules relating to attendance, the candidates who secured more than 75% of attendance are eligible to write University examinations. Condonation eligibility on recommendation by the Principal of the College is 66% and above but less than 75%. Candidates who have secured less than 66% of attendance have to redo the full course of one year in the subsequent academic year irrespective of the number of days falling short of attendance by obtaining prior permission for admission from the Director of Legal Studies and the Tamilnadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University on payment of fees prescribed for readmission. A candidate who fails to earn the required attendance in an odd semester is not eligible for promotion to the ensuing even semester and he shall redo the same odd semester in the subsequent year. (iii) The third respondent has also stated that as per the regulations of the Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University, students who secured 75% and more attendance are eligible to write the University examinations and be promoted to the next semester. The Principal can recommend to condone shortage of attendance, if a student secures atleast 66% of attendance. A student who secures less than 66% of attendance is not eligible to appear for the University examinations and for promotion to the next semester course, the student has to redo the course as per the University regulations. As the petitioners have failed to earn the required attendance, they are not eligible for promotion to the next semester and they shall redo the entire semester as per the University regulations. Only if a student is eligible for promotion, he can be permitted to pay the fees and join the next semester course and as such, the petitioners are not entitled to get the relief prayed for in this writ petition. The last date for admission for the academic year 2009-2010 was also over on 7.8.2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (iv) The respondent has also specifically averred that in W.P.No.27115/2008 the First Bench of this Court has directed that the attendance of the students should be strictly enforced. In view of the above, the respondent has prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 6. The strong contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that it is because of the unforeseen circumstances and due to the closure of the Colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu on account of student unrest in Dr.Ambedkar Government Law College, Chennai and on an incident took place on 12.11.2008 and the disturbance in the High Court premises the petitioners failed to get the minimum attendance and it is not an intentional one in not attending the classes and it is because of the fear or apprehension in the minds of the students that if they attend the classes there may be certain unforeseen circumstances again. Therefore, they have attended the classes a minimum of days. He would also submit that the prescribed attendance rules could not apply when a large number of students lack attendance and therefore it is special and peculiar circumstance which took place and the University as well as the Government have also taken note of the entire circumstances and certain concessions were allowed by the University by taking a resolution by accepting the proposal of the Director of Legal Studies for condonation of attendance for 30 days and it is uniformly in respect of the Central Law College, Salem the condonation for 30 days was allowed in respect of all the classes and all the students. However, this has been restricted to the petitioners' case and in the affiliated colleges for 15 days. Therefore, the petitioners could not get the benefit of concession allowed by the University. 7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that because of unusual and unforeseen circumstances this situation was prevailed in the College premises and therefore, the students were prevented from attending the Colleges. Even after reopening there was certain fear in the minds of the students. Therefore, some students have attended the classes and some of them have not come to their classes. Therefore, the Rules of the Bar Council of India and Regulations of the University cannot be strictly applied to the facts of this case and in the peculiar circumstances. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent University would contend that it is the standard of education and the discipline in the educational institutions is required to be regulated by the Bar Council of India and also with the above objective and aim of getting excellence in legal education the University has framed the regulations and prescribed the rules in respect of the required number of attendance for the students in every academic session as well as every semesters. This cannot be compromised by any of the student, whatever may happen in the college https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ premises. He also contended that this Court on an earlier occasion in an order passed by the first Bench has strictly directed the University to follow the attendance and their cannot be any relaxation and that would reduce the standard of education in the University. 9. A similar contention has been raised by the Government Advocate appearing for the respondent and he has submitted that it is the oldest institution in the country and that the 3rd respondent College is running with atmost reputation and respect keeping the standard of legal education on par with any legal institution in India. Therefore, it requires a strict discipline should be maintained in the College campus and the attendance as per the prescribed rules and regulations of the University to be kept on record and it cannot be relaxed for any purpose. He would also submit that after reopening of the College on 31.3.2008 the students have started attending the classes and only these students have not secured the minimum of attendance. Therefore, any sympathetic view of this Court may have an impact on the discipline in the institution and there may be prejudice in keeping the institution with the standard as well as the norms prescribed by the various authorities of the legal education. 10. The circumspection of the fact would reveal that the petitioners are students of II year B.L., (Five Years course), Dr.Ambedkar Government Law College. It is seen that they have entered the College with the fond hope to become reputed lawyers and they have attended the classes in the previous year and it appears that there was no lapses on their part. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the relevant records placed before this Court and also gone through the relevant provisions in the Act and the statute of the Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University. Due to some unforeseen circumstances, an incident took place on 12.11.2008 within the Law College premises and the College was indefinitely closed due to law and order problem and other reasons. It was the situation that the students have not attended the classes. After the long interval, the classes were reopened on 31.3.2009 and all the students have started attending the classes. These petitioners have attended for 19 days, 17 days, 26 days, 19 days and 17 days respectively. 12. As per the Bar Council of India Rules, it is required that the students shall put in a minimum of attendance of 75% of attendance of lectures of each of the subjects as also at tutorials, moot courts and practical training course, provided that in exceptional cases for reasons to be recorded and communicated to the Bar Council of India, the Dean of the Faculty of the Law and the Principal of Law Colleges may condone attendance short of those https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ required by the Rules, if the student has attendance 66% of the lectures in the aggregate for the semester or examination as the case may be and also as per the Law University Rules relating to attendance the candidates securing more than 75 % of the attendance are eligible to write the University examinations. Condonation eligibility of recommendation by the Principal of the College is 66% and above but less than 75%. Candidates who have secured less than 66 % of attendance have to redo the full course of one year in the subsequent academic year irrespective of the number of days falling short of attendance by obtaining prior permission for admission from the Director of Legal Studies and the Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University on payment of fees prescribed for readmission. A candidate who fails to earn the required attendance in an odd semester is not eligible for promotion to the ensuing even semester and he shall redo the same odd semester in the subsequent year. 13. In the light of the above rules, it is to be examined that the petitioners have appeared for the days as mentioned above and therefore there is short of attendance as prescribed by the above rules of the Bar Council of India as well as the Law University rules. The Law University after taking note of the happenings in the Law College premises and the Syndicate of the University in the 95th meeting conducted on 10.7.2009 took up an agenda to ratify the permission granted to the students who have secured attendance below 75% in the B.A., B.L., (Hons.) Degree Course of the School of Excellence in for appearing in the May/June 2009 University Semester Examinations and the said resolution has been drafted on the background that the School of Excellence has worked for 80 days as on 30.06.2009. It is observed that the total regular classes for IV and V year students were conducted for 80 days and for I year to III year for 66 days due to closure of the School of Excellence in Law along with all the colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu on account of students unrest in Dr.Ambedkar Government Law College, Chennai and disturbances in High Court premises. It is also noticed that the prescribed attendance rules could not be applied as a large number of students suffer with lack of attendance marginally. Therefore, the University has requested the Syndicate to ratify the decision about the shortage. In the above circumstances, the shortage of attendance to such of those students was condoned and they were allowed to write the University examinations with the prescribed fees of condonation. Such Syndicate resoution was taken up for condonation on 06.6.2009 and the following is the letter of communication and the resolution taken by the Syndicate is extracted below: "I am to inform the Minutes of the U.G.Board of Studies held on 06.06.2009 as approved by the Syndicate at its 95th Meeting held on 10.07.2009 with regard to condonation of shortage of attendance for all the affiliated Law Colleges due to the students agitation, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ boycott of classes and closure of all the Law Colleges as instructed by Government of Tamil Nadu. Letter of communication in this regard has been sent to the Principals of all the affiliated Law Colleges vide Lr.No.2308/Aca/Regr/A1/2009 dt.25.06.2009. "The Board RESOLVED to accept the proposal of the Director of Legal Studies for condonation of attendance for 30 days for First Year (3 year & 5 year) and 15 days for all other(Even Semester). In the case of Central Law College, Salem the condonation is for 30 days for all." When a question has been put to the counsel for the University regarding the position with regard to the power of the Syndicate in respect of condonation, the learned counsel has produced the Act and Statute of the University wherein Section 45 of Chapter VI of the Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University Act and Statutes provides that " No candidate shall be admitted to any University examination unless he is enrolled as a member of a University college or of an affiliated or approved college and has satisfied the requirements as to the attendance required under the regulations for the same or unless he is exempted from such requirements of enrollment or attendance or both by an order of the Syndicate passed on the recommendation of the Academic Senate made under the regulations prescribed. Exemptions granted under this section shall be subject to such conditions as the Syndicate may deem fit." On an earlier occasion this Court has considered a similar circumstance in respect of 14 students of the Law University for condonation of attendance and this Court in its order in W.P.Nos.18732 to 18740 etc of 2007 dated 6.8.2007 has taken into consideration of the situation and passed the following order. "14.In the circumstances, in view of the pitiable state of the petitioners, I am of the considered view that condonation of lack attendance is well within the purview of the Academic Committee and Syndicate of the first respondent University. If the rule as regards the required attendance is not satisfied, it is only the Academic Committee which can look into the case and thereafter, it may place the matter before the Syndicate, the supreme body of the University, which can have the final day. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 15.In such a view of the matter, taking cognizance of the fact that this matter is concerned with the case of 13 out of 44 students studying at the third respondent institution, I direct the petitioners to submit their representations to the third respondent institution forthwith, explaining therein the genuine reasons for their lack of attendance. Further, I direct the third respondent institution to consider the petitioners' representations and place the same before the Academic Committee and if necessary, before the Syndicate, seeking condonation of lack of attendance on the part of the petitioners. Also, the respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders on the grievance petitions of the petitioners taking note of their credibility in studies during the previous semesters and consider their case sympathetically by permitting them to attend their next respective semester classes after obtaining appropriate undertaking from the petitioners, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of representation by the petitioners as directed above. However, it is made clear that this order cannot be taken as a precedent by anyone." 14. When the matter was taken for interim relief this Court by order dated 1.7.2009 has considered the case of the petitioners and after noticing the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties concerned this Court is of the view that the main issue can be decided at the stage of the final hearing of the writ petition. However, as an interim measure, the respondents were directed to permit the petitioners to write the IV semester II year B.L.,(Five year course) scheduled to commence from 06.7.2009. However, the results of the examination were not be published until further orders. This interim order was passed subject to the result of the writ petition. It was made clear that the said order would not confer any additional rights, on the petitioners and they could not make any further claims based on equity. Para 5 of the said order is extracted hereunder: "5.In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned, this Court is of the view that the main issue could be decided at the stage of the final hearing of the writ petition. ) However as an interim measure, the respondents are directed to permit the petitioners to write the IV semester II Year B.L., (Five Year course)Examinations, scheduled to commence from 6.7.2009. However, the results of the examinations shall not be published, until further orders. This interim order is passed subject to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the result of the writ petition. It is made clear that this order shall not confer any additional rights, on the petitioners and they cannot make any further claims based on equity. The petition is ordered accordingly." 15. In view of the abovesaid situation, it is not in dispute that the occurrence which had