B.Jagadeesh v. The Registrar Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Govt. Law University Chennai & Ors.

ORDER The prayer in the writ petition is for a writ of Mandamusdirecting the respondents to permit the petitioners to write the IVsemester examination II year B.L.(Five years course), Dr.AmbedkarGovernment Law College, Chennai. 2.M.P.No.1 of 2009 is for a direction to the respondents topermit the petitioners to write the IV semester, II year B.L.(FiveYears Course) examination to be held on 06.7.2009. M.P.No.2/2009 isfor a direction to the third respondent to receive the fees andpermit the petitioners to sit in the III year B.L.(Five years course).3.The petitioners who are all the students of Dr.AmbedkarGovernment Law College (hereinafter referred to as "the Law College")have filed the above writ petition for a direction to permit them towrite the IV semester examination of the II year B.L., (Five yearscourse). According to them, they are studying in II year B.L., ofFive years course at the Law College. They claimed that they havepromptly attended the course and had written the examinations in theprevious year. Due to some unforeseen circumstances an incident hadoccurred on 12.11.2008 within the Law College premises and theCollege was indefinitely closed due to law and order and securityreasons and they were effectively prevented from attending theclasses. After long interval, the classes were suddenly reopened on31.3.2009 and all the students were having rural background and dueto want of individual communications they could not attend theclasses in time. After 20 days, they attended the classes duringlast week of April 2009 and thereafter, all the students paid theexamination fees and hall tickets were also processed and the halltickets were handed over to them. But it was noted that there isshortage 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 ofrespondents preventing the students from appearing for the IVsemester examination and the examination was scheduled to be held on06.7.2009 and when the petitioners were not allowed to write theexamination, there was irreparable loss and detrimental to theircareer. Therefore, they sought for a direction to permit them toappear for the examinations. In this regard they sent arepresentation on 22.6.2009, but the same is of no avail. Therefore,they have approached this Court by way of this writ petition for therelief abovementioned on the ground that the act of the respondentsis arbitrary and the respondents ought to have considered theunforeseen events that took place on 12.11.2008 and the action of therespondents is unreasonable.4.(i)The first respondent has filed counter and stated thatat 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 theaffidavit of the petition the respondent has no remarks to offer. Itis further stated that the classes were suddenly reopened on31.3.2009 and after a long interval the petitioners has also attendedthe classes for nearly 20 days alone during the last week of April2009. When the petitioner is aware that the College was reopened on31.3.2009 he would have attended the classes from the date ofreopening instead of blaming that he could not attend the classes dueto want of individual communication. The Directorate of LegalStudies have given wide publicity of reopening of the Collegesthrough 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 aminimum attendance of 75% of lectures on each of thesubjects as also at tutorials, moot courts andpractical training course:Provided that in exceptional cases for reasons tobe recorded and communicated to the Bar Council ofIndia, the Dean of the Faculty of the Law and thePrincipal of Law Colleges may condone attendance shortof those required by the Rule, if the student hasattendance 66% of the lectures in the aggregate for thesemester 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 ofStudies Meeting held on 22.06.2004 resolved as follows:"It is resolved to recommend to the Syndicate thatif a student fails to earn sufficient attendance in onesemester, the student will not be eligible to take thatsemester examination and will not be allowed to continuein next semester and the student must redo the entiresemester in which he/she lacked sufficient attendanceand only on completion of that semester in which he/shehas to redo, will be allowed to continue the nextsemester."Further the 53rd Special Meeting of the Syndicate held on 22.6.2004resolved to approve the abovementioned resolution.(iv)It is the stand of the respondent that no student willbe allowed to write the examination unless he has earned the minimumrequired 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 isstrictly adhering to the attendance regulations prescribed by the BarCouncil of India and the same is being followed by the affiliated LawColleges also. Therefore, the respondent has prayed for dismissal ofthe writ petition with exemplary costs.5.(i)The third respondent, the Principal of the Law Collegehas filed counter. It is stated that the petitioners approached thisCourt for a direction to write the IV semester examination. By theorder of this Court dated 01.7.2009 in W.P.No.11671/2009, as aninterim measure, the respondents were directed to permit thepetitioners to write the IV semester II Year B.L.(Five Years course)examination scheduled to commence from 6.7.2009 and it is also madeclear that the results of the examination shall not be publisheduntil further orders and that the interim order was passed subject tothe result of the writ petition and also that the interim order shallnot confer any additional rights on the petitioners and thepetitioners could not make any further claims based on equity.Pursuant to the order of this Court, the petitioners were permittedto write the examinations and this writ petition is pending.(ii)In the counter it is also stated that the petitionershave failed to secure the attendance as per the Universityregulations. As per the order of the University in LetterNo.2308/Aca/Regr/A1/2009 dated 25.6.2009 the number of working daysin the semester was fixed as 75. However, the petitioners haveearned very low attendance as mentioned below:S.No.Name of thepetitionerAttendance earned by thepetitioners during themonthNumber of daysattendanceearned by thepetitionerJan-09Mar-09Apr-09May-09June-091B.Jagadeesh, 2 B.L.200710192M.Devendran000710173R.Jayaganesh003131026 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ S.No.Name of thepetitionerAttendance earned by thepetitioners during themonthNumber of daysattendanceearned by thepetitionerJan-09Mar-09Apr-09May-09June-094R.Muneeshawaran002710195S.Kajendran00071017As per the Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University Rules relating toattendance, the candidates who secured more than 75% of attendanceare eligible to write University examinations. Condonationeligibility on recommendation by the Principal of the College is 66%and above but less than 75%. Candidates who have secured less than66% of attendance have to redo the full course of one year in thesubsequent academic year irrespective of the number of days fallingshort of attendance by obtaining prior permission for admission fromthe Director of Legal Studies and the Tamilnadu Dr.Ambedkar LawUniversity on payment of fees prescribed for readmission. A candidatewho fails to earn the required attendance in an odd semester is noteligible for promotion to the ensuing even semester and he shall redothe same odd semester in the subsequent year. (iii)The third respondent has also stated that as per theregulations of the Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University, studentswho secured 75% and more attendance are eligible to write theUniversity examinations and be promoted to the next semester. ThePrincipal can recommend to condone shortage of attendance, if astudent secures atleast 66% of attendance. A student who securesless than 66% of attendance is not eligible to appear for theUniversity examinations and for promotion to the next semestercourse, the student has to redo the course as per the Universityregulations. As the petitioners have failed to earn the requiredattendance, they are not eligible for promotion to the next semesterand they shall redo the entire semester as per the Universityregulations. Only if a student is eligible for promotion, he can bepermitted to pay the fees and join the next semester course and assuch, the petitioners are not entitled to get the relief prayed forin this writ petition. The last date for admission for the academicyear 2009-2010 was also over on 7.8.2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (iv)The respondent has also specifically averred that inW.P.No.27115/2008 the First Bench of this Court has directed that theattendance of the students should be strictly enforced. In view ofthe above, the respondent has prayed for dismissal of the WritPetition.6.The strong contention of the learned counsel for thepetitioners is that it is because of the unforeseen circumstances anddue to the closure of the Colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu onaccount of student unrest in Dr.Ambedkar Government Law College,Chennai and on an incident took place on 12.11.2008 and thedisturbance in the High Court premises the petitioners failed to getthe minimum attendance and it is not an intentional one in notattending the classes and it is because of the fear or apprehensionin the minds of the students that if they attend the classes theremay be certain unforeseen circumstances again. Therefore, they haveattended the classes a minimum of days. He would also submit thatthe prescribed attendance rules could not apply when a large numberof students lack attendance and therefore it is special and peculiarcircumstance which took place and the University as well as theGovernment have also taken note of the entire circumstances andcertain concessions were allowed by the University by taking aresolution by accepting the proposal of the Director of Legal Studiesfor condonation of attendance for 30 days and it is uniformly inrespect of the Central Law College, Salem the condonation for 30 dayswas allowed in respect of all the classes and all the students.However, this has been restricted to the petitioners' case and in theaffiliated colleges for 15 days. Therefore, the petitioners couldnot get the benefit of concession allowed by the University.7.The main contention of the learned counsel for thepetitioner is that because of unusual and unforeseen circumstancesthis situation was prevailed in the College premises and therefore,the students were prevented from attending the Colleges. Even afterreopening there was certain fear in the minds of the students.Therefore, some students have attended the classes and some of themhave not come to their classes. Therefore, the Rules of the BarCouncil of India and Regulations of the University cannot be strictlyapplied to the facts of this case and in the peculiar circumstances.8.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondentUniversity would contend that it is the standard of education and thediscipline in the educational institutions is required to beregulated by the Bar Council of India and also with the aboveobjective and aim of getting excellence in legal education theUniversity has framed the regulations and prescribed the rules inrespect of the required number of attendance for the students inevery academic session as well as every semesters. This cannot becompromised 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 occasionin an order passed by the first Bench has strictly directed theUniversity to follow the attendance and their cannot be anyrelaxation and that would reduce the standard of education in theUniversity.9.A similar contention has been raised by the GovernmentAdvocate appearing for the respondent and he has submitted that itis the oldest institution in the country and that the 3rd respondentCollege is running with atmost reputation and respect keeping thestandard of legal education on par with any legal institution inIndia. Therefore, it requires a strict discipline should bemaintained in the College campus and the attendance as per theprescribed rules and regulations of the University to be kept onrecord and it cannot be relaxed for any purpose. He would alsosubmit that after reopening of the College on 31.3.2008 the studentshave started attending the classes and only these students have notsecured the minimum of attendance. Therefore, any sympathetic viewof this Court may have an impact on the discipline in the institutionand there may be prejudice in keeping the institution with thestandard as well as the norms prescribed by the various authoritiesof the legal education.10.The circumspection of the fact would reveal that thepetitioners are students of II year B.L., (Five Years course),Dr.Ambedkar Government Law College. It is seen that they haveentered the College with the fond hope to become reputed lawyers andthey have attended the classes in the previous year and it appearsthat there was no lapses on their part.11.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perusedthe relevant records placed before this Court and also gone throughthe relevant provisions in the Act and the statute of the Tamil NaduDr.Ambedkar Law University. Due to some unforeseen circumstances, anincident took place on 12.11.2008 within the Law College premises andthe College was indefinitely closed due to law and order problem andother reasons. It was the situation that the students have notattended the classes. After the long interval, the classes werereopened on 31.3.2009 and all the students have started attending theclasses. These petitioners have attended for 19 days, 17 days, 26days, 19 days and 17 days respectively.12.As per the Bar Council of India Rules, it is required thatthe students shall put in a minimum of attendance of 75% ofattendance of lectures of each of the subjects as also at tutorials,moot courts and practical training course, provided that inexceptional cases for reasons to be recorded and communicated to theBar Council of India, the Dean of the Faculty of the Law and thePrincipal 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 thelectures in the aggregate for the semester or examination as the casemay be and also as per the Law University Rules relating toattendance the candidates securing more than 75 % of the attendanceare eligible to write the University examinations. Condonationeligibility of recommendation by the Principal of the College is 66%and above but less than 75%. Candidates who have secured less than66 % of attendance have to redo the full course of one year in thesubsequent academic year irrespective of the number of days fallingshort of attendance by obtaining prior permission for admission fromthe Director of Legal Studies and the Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar LawUniversity on payment of fees prescribed for readmission. Acandidate who fails to earn the required attendance in an oddsemester is not eligible for promotion to the ensuing even semesterand he shall redo the same odd semester in the subsequent year. 13.In the light of the above rules, it is to be examined thatthe petitioners have appeared for the days as mentioned above andtherefore there is short of attendance as prescribed by the aboverules of the Bar Council of India as well as the Law Universityrules. The Law University after taking note of the happenings in theLaw College premises and the Syndicate of the University in the 95thmeeting conducted on 10.7.2009 took up an agenda to ratify thepermission granted to the students who have secured attendance below75% in the B.A., B.L., (Hons.) Degree Course of the School ofExcellence in for appearing in the May/June 2009 University SemesterExaminations and the said resolution has been drafted on thebackground that the School of Excellence has worked for 80 days as on30.06.2009. It is observed that the total regular classes for IV andV year students were conducted for 80 days and for I year to III yearfor 66 days due to closure of the School of Excellence in Law alongwith all the colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu on account ofstudents unrest in Dr.Ambedkar Government Law College, Chennai anddisturbances in High Court premises. It is also noticed that theprescribed attendance rules could not be applied as a large number ofstudents suffer with lack of attendance marginally. Therefore, theUniversity has requested the Syndicate to ratify the decision aboutthe shortage. In the above circumstances, the shortage of attendanceto such of those students was condoned and they were allowed to writethe University examinations with the prescribed fees of condonation.Such Syndicate resoution was taken up for condonation on 06.6.2009and the following is the letter of communication and the resolutiontaken by the Syndicate is extracted below:"I am to inform the Minutes of the U.G.Board ofStudies held on 06.06.2009 as approved by the Syndicate atits 95th Meeting held on 10.07.2009 with regard tocondonation of shortage of attendance for all theaffiliated Law Colleges due to the students agitation, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ boycott of classes and closure of all the Law Colleges asinstructed by Government of Tamil Nadu. Letter ofcommunication in this regard has been sent to thePrincipals of all the affiliated Law Colleges videLr.No.2308/Aca/Regr/A1/2009 dt.25.06.2009."The Board RESOLVED to accept the proposalof the Director of Legal Studies forcondonation of attendance for 30 days for FirstYear (3 year & 5 year) and 15 days for allother(Even Semester).In the case of Central Law College, Salemthe condonation is for 30 days for all."When a question has been put to the counsel for the Universityregarding the position with regard to the power of the Syndicate inrespect of condonation, the learned counsel has produced the Act andStatute of the University wherein Section 45 of Chapter VI of theTamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University Act and Statutes provides that" No candidate shall be admitted to any Universityexamination unless he is enrolled as a member of aUniversity college or of an affiliated or approvedcollege and has satisfied the requirements as to theattendance required under the regulations for the same orunless he is exempted from such requirements ofenrollment or attendance or both by an order of theSyndicate passed on the recommendation of the AcademicSenate made under the regulations prescribed. Exemptionsgranted under this section shall be subject to suchconditions as the Syndicate may deem fit."On an earlier occasion this Court has considered a similarcircumstance in respect of 14 students of the Law University forcondonation of attendance and this Court in its order inW.P.Nos.18732 to 18740 etc of 2007 dated 6.8.2007 has taken intoconsideration of the situation and passed the following order."14.In the circumstances, in view of the pitiablestate of the petitioners, I am of the considered viewthat condonation of lack attendance is well within thepurview of the Academic Committee and Syndicate of thefirst respondent University. If the rule as regards therequired attendance is not satisfied, it is only theAcademic Committee which can look into the case andthereafter, it may place the matter before the Syndicate,the supreme body of the University, which can have thefinal day. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

15.In such a view of the matter, taking cognizanceof the fact that this matter is concerned with the caseof 13 out of 44 students studying at the third respondentinstitution, I direct the petitioners to submit theirrepresentations to the third respondent institutionforthwith, explaining therein the genuine reasons fortheir lack of attendance. Further, I direct the thirdrespondent institution to consider the petitioners'representations and place the same before the AcademicCommittee and if necessary, before the Syndicate, seekingcondonation of lack of attendance on the part of thepetitioners. Also, the respondents are directed to passappropriate orders on the grievance petitions of thepetitioners taking note of their credibility in studiesduring the previous semesters and consider their casesympathetically by permitting them to attend their nextrespective semester classes after obtaining appropriateundertaking from the petitioners, within a period of twoweeks from the date of receipt of representation by thepetitioners as directed above. However, it is made clearthat this order cannot be taken as a precedent byanyone."14.When the matter was taken for interim relief this Court byorder dated 1.7.2009 has considered the case of the petitioners andafter noticing the submissions of the learned counsel appearing forthe parties concerned this Court is of the view that the main issuecan be decided at the stage of the final hearing of the writpetition. However, as an interim measure, the respondents weredirected to permit the petitioners to write the IV semester II yearB.L.,(Five year course) scheduled to commence from 06.7.2009.However, the results of the examination were not be published untilfurther orders. This interim order was passed subject to the resultof the writ petition. It was made clear that the said order wouldnot confer any additional rights, on the petitioners and they couldnot make any further claims based on equity. Para 5 of the saidorder is extracted hereunder: "5.In view of the submissions made by the learnedcounsels appearing for the parties concerned, this Courtis of the view that the main issue could be decided atthe stage of the final hearing of the writ petition. )However as an interim measure, the respondents aredirected to permit the petitioners to write the IVsemester II Year B.L., (Five Year course)Examinations,scheduled to commence from 6.7.2009. However, theresults of the examinations shall not be published, untilfurther orders. This interim order is passed subject to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the result of the writ petition. It is made clear thatthis order shall not confer any additional rights, on thepetitioners and they cannot make any further claims basedon equity. The petition is ordered accordingly." 15.In view of the abovesaid situation, it is not in disputethat the occurrence which had taken place on 12.11.2008 in the LawCollege premises and the law and order problem and also certaincircumstances prevailed in the High Court premises have been takennote of by the Law University and the Syndicate has also consideredthe issue and thereafter resolved to accept the proposal of theDirector of Legal Studies for condonation of attendance for 30 daysfor I year (Three year and Five year) and 15 days for all other (Evensemester). However, in the case of the Central Law College, Salem,the condonation is for 30 days for all. This Court though notdistinguishes with respect to the Government Colleges and Private LawColleges, what is the reason for the Syndicate to take such a view inrespect of a Private College allowing them 30 days when there was nosuch situation in respect of incident took place on 12.11.2008 as inthe Campus of Dr.Ambedkar Government Law College or in the premisesof the High Court. However, they have been permitted for theaffiliated Colleges and the Government Colleges only for 15 days.Therefore, it requires reconsideration by the Law University, thefirst respondent. As per the statistical information provided by thethird respondent, it shows 15 days concession is given to each of thestudents. But in the case of the petitioners their attendance isranging from 45% to 55% and therefore they are in short of it.However, the information reveals that if uniform concession is given,namely, 30 days permissible in respect of Central Law College, Salemand for the I year semester, then the petitioners are also comingwithin the zone of consideration who satisfy the requirements ofattendance. This Court does not find what is the reason for theUniversity to take such a view in giving a different concessionaldays for the attendance when the situation was uniform in all theplaces, particularly, in Dr.Ambedkar Government Law College. It isalso brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioners arealso entitled for condonation of 10% of the attendance on the medicalgrounds. Therefore, this can be taken into consideration by theappropriate authority, namely, Respondents 1 to 3.16.In the light of the abovesaid situation and thecircumstances and also the relevant provision of law and the variousevents and decisions taken by the respondents and looking into thestandard of education and the matter is concerned with five of thestudents studying in the II year Law Course in the respondentinstitution and also in the light of the representation made by thepetitioners and in view of the pitiable state of the petitioners, Iam of the considered view that the condonation of lack of attendanceis well within the purview of the Academic Committee and the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Syndicate of the first respondent University. If the rule as regardsthe required attendance is not satisfied, it is only the AcademicCommittee which can look into this case and thereafter, it may placethe matter before the Syndicate, the supreme body of the Universityin the light of the earlier resolutions giving concession of 30 daysto the Colleges and particularly, uniform days of concession as inthe case of Central Law College, Salem condoning 30 days for all.17.Under these circumstances, I hereby direct(1)the first respondent University is directed toconsider the petitioners' grievance to write the 4th Semesterexamination of second year B.L. (Five years course), takinginto account the unforeseen circumstances which prevailed inthe premises of Dr.Ambedkar Law College and Madras HighCourt and to place the matter before the Syndicate of theUniversity to take a decision in respect of petitioners'grievance under Section 45 of the Statute of the Tamil NaduDr.Ambedkar Law University Act in giving relaxation /concession / condonation as in the case of the first yearstudents and the Central Law College, Salem, wherein theuniform concession of 30 days was given and pass appropriateorders within a period of two weeks from today.(2)The third respondent is directed to place all therelevant records of the petitioners and the connectedproceedings before the first respondent University withintwo days from today.While passing this order, the learned counsel for the petitionersmade a consistent plea that the students are missing their attendanceevery day and therefore, they may be permitted to attend the classes.The said permission in my view cannot be granted. However, unlessthe Syndicate takes a decision one way or the other. Therefore,considering the circumstances, the first respondent may take thedecision within a weeks' time to pass appropriate orders.18.The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.Consequently, M.P.No.2/2009 is closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrarsal https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1.The RegistrarTamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Govt. Law UniversityChennai2.The Director of Legal StudiesTamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Govt. Law UniversityChennai3.The PrincipalDr.Ambedkar Govt. Law CollegeChennai1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.47279+1 cc to Mr.R.Sankara Subbu, Advocate, SR.No.46960 W.P.NO.11671/2009 & M.P.No.2/2009BV {CO}TP/17.9.2009.