Apoorv Yadav v. University of Delhi & Ors

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. AUGUST 01, 2014 kks/gsr..

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA No.433/2014 & CM No.10026/2014 (for stay) Reserved on: 16th July, 2014. Pronounced on: 1st August, 2014. APOORV YADAV ….. Appellant Through: Mr. R.K. Saini with Mr. Anil Kumar Yadav, Advocates. Versus UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. ….. Respondents Through: Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Adv. for R- 1/DU. Ms. Priyam Mehta, Adv. for BCI. CORAM :- HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW MS. G. ROHINI, CHIEF JUSTICE 1. The unsuccessful petitioner in W.P.(C) No.256/2014 is the appellant before us. 2. The appellant/writ petitioner was given admission in the L.L.B. (3 year degree course) in Law Centre-II, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi for the Academic Year 2013-14. However, he was not allowed to appear for the First End Semester examinations scheduled from 30th November, 2013 to 16th December, 2013 on the ground of shortage of attendance. 3. Aggrieved by the same, he filed W.P.(C) No.256/2014 and the same was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the order under appeal dated 27th May, 2014. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. The appellant / writ petitioner was admitted to the LL.B. three year degree course of the respondent University in June / July, 2013. The first semester end term examination of the said course was scheduled to commence with effect from 30th November, 2013. However the respondent University, finding the appellant to be not having the requisite minimum attendance in the classes of the first semester, did not issue the admit card to the petitioner. Though the appellant filed W.P.(C) No.7857/2013 impugning the action of the respondent University of refusing to allow him to appear in the examination and also sought interim relief to enable him to appear in the said examination but according to the appellant, for reasons not attributable to him, the said application for interim relief could not be considered till the entire examinations were over and he accordingly withdrew the said writ petition with liberty to file afresh. The appellant thereafter, in or about January, 2014, filed the writ petition from which this appeal arises. 6. The only argument urged by the counsel for the appellant before us is that the appellant, in two of the five subjects of the first term had more than 70% attendance and was wrongly not permitted to take the examination in the said two subjects and if permitted to take the examination in the said two subjects, would be eligible for promotion to the second year of the course. 7. The counsel for the appellant has in this regard argued: (a) that under Section 7(1)(h) of the Advocates Act, 1961, the respondent Bar Council of India (BCI) is empowered to lay down standards of legal education; that the standards of legal education and recognition of degrees in law for admission as advocates as formulated by the respondent BCI in the year 1975 in Rule 3 in Section B of Part IV of the said rules, relating to attendance in LL.B. course provided as under: "Rule 3:- The Students shall be required to put in a minimum attendance of 66% of the 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 Law and Principal of Law colleges may condone attendance short of those required by the Rule, if the student had attendance 66% of the lectures in the aggregate for the semester or examination as the case may be." (b) however the Rule of the respondent University as contained in Ordinance VII Clause 2(8) relating to attendance in LL.B. course was as under: "(8)(a) In the case of students studying for the LL.B. Degree Examination, 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 inc