TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1749X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, for the foregoing reasons, the captioned petitions are disposed of with the following directions:- i. The respondents will promote the petitioners to the 9th semester and in this behalf make suitable adjustments in the form of extra classes, if found necessary. ii. The respondents will inform the petitioners as to how they can take extra classes for the 8th semester and when they can sit for the exam qua the said semester. iii. The petitioners will file undertaking in the form of an affidavit with the Principal, VIPS to the effect that they will attend the stipulated classes. 3. Before proceeding to deal with the arguments advanced by both sides, it is necessary to recapitulate the necessary facts that have led both the respondents/students approach the court for relief. The respondents/students are pursuing a five year integrated LL.B course in the respondent No. 2/VIPS. They had joined the said course in the academic year 2015-16. Each academic year comprises of two semesters. In each semester, the students are required to take examinations in six papers. Every paper has a credit rating of five. After clearing the first three academic years ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tes of appreciation filed with the writ petition. During the 8th semester, he had interned for one month between mid January to mid February 2019 with an advocate, who had issued him a certificate. But there is no explanation offered for not attending the classes for the remaining four months of the 8th semester. Unlike Naincy, Prateek had filed the writ petition in August, 2019. 6. Shorn of other peripheral pleas taken by the respondents/students in the writ petition to assail their detention order, the main thrust of the arguments addressed by their counsel before the learned Single Judge pivoted around the interpretation of Clause 9 and Clause 11.3(v)(i) of Ordinance 11 and the contention that since there was an ambiguity in the said Clauses, the benefit must go in favour of the students. The plea taken by the respondents/students that shortage of attendance alone cannot be a disqualification for promotion to the next academic year found favour with the learned Single Judge who has held that though the respondents/students are short of attendance, but having obtained at least 50% of the total credits in the fourth academic year, as required, they deserve to be promoted with a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xercise, tutorials and practical training conducted in the subject, taken together. The Competent Authority can however reduce the minimum required 70% attendance to 65% in special circumstances. To buttress the aforesaid arguments, reliance has been placed by the appellant/GGSIPU on the following judgments:- (i) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Hindustan Bulk Carriers reported as (2003) 3 SCC 57 (ii) Vipin Sharma vs. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University reported as 2009 SCC OnLine Delhi 2037. (iii) Sukriti Upadhyay vs. University of Delhi reported as 2010 SCC OnLine Delhi 3502. (iv) University of Delhi vs. Vandana Kandari Anr. reported as 2011 SCC OnLine Del 111 (v) Chaudhary Ali Zia Kabir vs. GGSIP University Ors. reported as 2011 SCC OnLine DEL 1356 (vi) Siddharth Kaul Ors. vs. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University reported as 2011 SCC OnLine Delhi 5157. 9. Lastly, learned ASG submitted that the impugned judgment has opened a pandora box for the reason that the appellant/GGSIPU has been served advance copies of fresh petitions being filed by students similarly situated as the respondents/students herein, who were detained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ule of contra proferentem ought to be invoked, the decision in Industrial Promotion Investment Corporation of Orissa Ltd. vs. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported as (2016) 15 SCC 315, was cited by learned counsel as a case in point. 11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and carefully examined the impugned judgment in the light of the relevant rules and the case law cited. 12. Though no challenge was laid by the respondents/students to any provision of Ordinance 11, the entire dispute in the instant case hinges on the interpretation of Clause 9.1 and Clause 11.3(v) of Ordinance 11. For ease of reference, we may extract below, the relevant part of Clause 9:- 9. Attendance 9.1. A student shall be required to have a minimum attendance of 75% in the aggregate of all the courses taken together in a semester, provided that the Dean of the School in case of University Schools and Principal/Director in case of University maintained/affiliated institutes may condone attendance shortage up to 5% for individual student for reasons to be recorded. However, under no condition, a student who has an aggr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aintaining standard of legal education and for recognition of degrees in law for enrolment as an advocate. Rule 12 of the BCI Rules which is relevant for the purpose of deciding the present appeals, is extracted below:- 12. End Semester Test No student of any of the degree program shall be allowed to take the end semester test in a subject if the student concerned has not attended minimum of 70% of the classes held in the subject concerned as also the moot court room exercises, tutorials and practical training conducted in the subject taken together. Provided that if a student for any exceptional reasons fail to attend 70% of the classes held in any subject, the Dean of the University or the Principal of the Centre of Legal Education, as the case may be, may allow the student to take the test if the student concerned attended at least 65% of the classes held in the subject concerned and attended 70% of classes in all the subjects taken together. The similar power shall rest with the Vice Chancellor or Director of a National Law University, or his authorized representative in the absence of the Dean of Law. Provided further that a list of such students a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the student has studied the final year of the programme. Academic break shall be applicable only to students 1. Who are detained due to shortage of attendance. 2. Who do not attain the required credits for promotion. 3. Those who want to drop the acquired credits of an academic year and repeat the full academic year (feat is, appear in all academic components), such students shall be required to apply through School of Study/Institute/College for readmission. This break shall be deemed as an academic break. Only two academic breaks are permissible for a student for the completion of the academic programme, a student will not be allowed to take more than two academic breaks, for any reason whatsoever. A student who has exhausted two academic breaks and a further occasion arises for him/her to take academic break, in such cases the admission of such student would automatically stand cancelled. If due to this clause, a situation arises were the student shall not be able to complete the requirements for the award of the degree in stipulated time as per clause 4.3, the admission of such students shall automatically stand cancelled. If such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credits of an academic year and repeat the full academic year. 19. On interpreting Clause 11.3(v)(i) above, the understanding of the learned Single Judge is that a student can be detained on account of shortage of attendance and if he is so detained, he shall have to repeat the examination of the semester in question for which he has been detained. However, if the student has obtained the minimum of 50% of the total credits in the academic year in question, then notwithstanding the fact that there is a shortage of attendance in either of the two semesters of that year, the University has no option but to promote him to the next academic year and afford him an opportunity to complete the course within the prescribed period for completion of the academic programme. For arriving at the aforesaid conclusion, the learned Single Judge has sought to read Clause 9.2 together with Clause 11.3 (v) of Ordinance 11 and construe them harmoniously. A view has been taken in the impugned judgment that if such a construction is not placed on Clause 11.3(v)(i), then the entire Clause would be rendered redundant. 20. We are in respectful disagreement with the aforesaid interpretation given to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by them in the existing academic year? To our mind, the answer would be a firm 'No'. Clause 11.3(v)(ii) does not contemplate that a student cannot be detained in a particular year if he does not secure the minimum attendance. The word 'or' used in Clause 11.3(v)(ii) assumes great significance in this context and runs contrary to the view expressed in the impugned judgment that denial of promotion can only happen if twin conditions are fulfilled, i.e., there is detention on account of short attendance and the short attendance has led to the student securing less than 50% of the total credits. The concept of an academic break explained in Clause 11.3(v)(ii) itself contemplates the three situations in which such a break can be applied to students, namely in a case where they are detained due to deficiency in attendance or when they have failed to attain the required credits for promotion or when they want to drop the acquired credits of an academic year. 23. Clause 11.3 (v) (ii) goes on to clarify that a student, who does not get promoted to the next academic year, would be declared to have taken an academic break for repeating the examinations of the relevant year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Supreme Court observed thus: 20. Whenever it is possible to do so, it must be done to construe the provisions which appear to conflict so that they harmonise. It should not be lightly assumed that Parliament had given with one hand what it took away with the other. 21. The provisions of one section of the statute cannot be used to defeat those of another unless it is impossible to effect reconciliation between them. Thus a construction that reduces one of the provisions to a useless number or dead letter is not a harmonized construction. To harmonise is not to destroy. (emphasis added) 25. In our view, 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 credi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n courts must shows deference to the said decision as the presumption is that being an expert in the field, the body has applied its mind before prescribing an eligibility criteria. {Refer: Ashutosh Bharti v. Ritnand Balved Education Foundation reported as MANU/DE/0024/2005, Siddharth Kaul and Ors. v. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University [W.P.(C) 7610/2011, decided on 02.12.2011], University Grants Commission and Anr. v. Neha Anil Bobde (Gadekar) reported as 2013 (10) SCC 519 and Prateek Singhal v. National Testing Agency Anr. reported as 2019 SCC OnLine 10873 } 28. As noted above, no specific challenge has been laid by the respondents/students to the legality or validity of Clause 9.1 that prescribes a minimum attendance of 70% in the aggregate of all the courses taken together in a semester. All the same, it needs to be emphasized that an integrated LL.B course being a professional course, students must ensure regular attendance in classes and those who do not satisfy the minimum required percentage of attendance, will be held ineligible for promotion to the next academic year. We can do no better than advert to several authoritative decisions of the Supreme Court and o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Bar Council and the University, a candidate cannot be said to have taken proper instructions or meaningfully undergone the course, unless he attends a minimum of 66% lectures in the aggregate, this Court cannot but respect that opinion. In matters relating to academics and standards of education, the Court would show deference to the opinion of the academicians unless a case of patent perversity is made out by the petitioners. The present is not, however, one such case where the requirement of the rule can be said to be so perverse or irrational as to call for the intervention of this Court. As a matter of fact, the minimum percentage of lectures having been fixed at 66%, still gives to the students freedom to miss or abstain from 34% of the such lectures. That is a fairly large percentage of lectures which a student may miss for a variety of reasons including sickness or such other reasons beyond his control. No student can however claim that apart from 34% lectures which he is entitled to miss even without a cause, the shortage to make up 66% should be condoned if he shows good cause for the same. (emphasis added) 29. Drawing strength from the observations made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring to law books and journals in a routine manner, has its own importance but that goes hand-in-hand with the knowledge that is acquired by a student on attending classes. 31. Thus, 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. The process is not about simply cramming and disgorging during the examinations. It is about assimilating, absorbing and soaking up for being imprinted permanently in the mind of a student. In this context, the condensed classes that the respondents/students are presently rushing through, in compliance of the directions issued in the impugned judgment, that are going on from 8.30 AM to 4.00 PM on a daily basis, till the 9th semester end term examination are conducted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
