Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2019 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 1749 - DELHI HIGH COURTSeeking permission of promotion to the next semester, i.e. the 9th semester, based on the credits obtained by them during the academic year 2018-19 - permission to appear for the 8th semester end term examinations in the next even semester, i.e. the 10th semester, as supplementary papers - interpretation of Clause 9.1 and Clause 11.3(v) of Ordinance 11 - HELD THAT:- Clause 9 deals with the aspect of attendance. Clause 9.1 requires that a student must have a minimum attendance of 75% in the aggregate of all the courses taken together in a semester. The minimum required attendance of 75% can be reduced by 5%, at the discretion of the competent authority, for reasons to be recorded. The said Clause makes it amply clear that no student, who has less than 70% aggregate attendance, shall be allowed to appear in the semester term end examination. It also states that in respect of programmes that are regulated by a statutory regulatory body, which in the present case, is the Bar Council of India, if such a body provides for any specific guideline for attendance, the same shall be applicable, as may be approved by the Board of Studies of the concerned school. Clause 9.1 of Ordinance 11 is founded on the guidelines laid down in Rule 12 of the BCI Rules, which prescribes minimum required attendance as 70% with a margin of 5% permitted in exceptional circumstances, at the discretion of the competent authority - In the present case, the attendance of both the respondents/students is abysmally low. The 8th semester of the fourth academic year had commenced on 07.01.2019 and ended on 31.05.2019. 218 classes were conducted in the said semester for the courses taken by Naincy. It is settled law that while interpreting a statute, the assumption is that it is a designed to be workable. A construction that results in defeating the plain and clear intent of the legislature ought to be rejected by the courts even though there may be some inexactitude in the language used - on harmonising Clauses 9 and 11.3(v) of Ordinance 11 in the backdrop of the legislative intent, the indisputable position that emerges is that the word "or" has been used in Clause 11.3 (v) (ii) in a disjunctive manner. It provides for two set of circumstances as the minimum threshold required to be crossed by a student who seeks promotion to the next academic year which is that a student should have attended minimum of 70% classes in the aggregate of the courses taken together in a semester and he should have obtained at least 50% of the total credits in the academic year in question. For the respondents/students to state that on obtaining a minimum of 50% credit score as prescribed in an academic year, they are entitled to be promoted to the next academic year notwithstanding the fact that they did not cross the threshold of the minimum attendance prescribed, is found to be untenable and liable to be rejected outright. A degree in law cannot be treated as an empty formality. A law degree encompasses all that a University stands for and is a reflection of the nature of knowledge that it has imparted to its students. Appeal allowed.
|