IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA W.P.No.63253/2016 c/w W.P.Nos.61196 – 61199/2016 AND W.P.Nos.61272 – 61275 & 61571/2016 (EDN – EX) IN W.P.No.63253/2016:
BETWEEN :
MALAVIKA RAMANAND D/O K.S.RAMANAND AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/AT NO.17/1, 5TH TEMPLE ROAD, 15TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE-560003. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI R.SUBRAMANYA, ADV.) AND :
1. KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580025 REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR 2. DEPUTY REGISTRAR ADMISSION & ACADEMICS KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580025 3. REGISTRAR (EVALUATION) KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580025 4. M.S. RAMAIAH COLLEGE OF LAW AFFILIATED TO KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY, HUBBALLI, M.S. RAMAIAH NAGAR M.S. RAMAIAH NAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560054 REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI GANAPATHI BHAT, ADV. FOR R-1 TO R-3; SRI C.N.MAHADESHWARA, ADV. FOR R-4.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION DATED 26.11.2016 AT ANNEX-A AND ETC.
IN W.P.Nos.61196 – 61199/2016:
BETWEEN :
1. RISHIKULYA D/O MADAN MOHAN ROUT AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/AT PLOT NO.358 SANTOSHI, 8TH CROSS, 3RD BLOCK, HMT LAYOUT, VIDYARANYAPURA, BANGALORE 560 097.
2. SANTOSH CHETTRI S/O DEBU CHETTRI, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/AT CHEMI PHARMA DISTRIBUTORS, S.C. GOSWAMI ROAD, NEAR HARI SABHA, PAN BAZAAR, GUWAHATI-781 001.
3. SUPRIYA PRADHAN D/O CHANDRA MANI PRADHAN AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/AT GIDDHA PAHAR, ASHRAM BUSTY, GHAYABRI I.G.P., P.04 P.S.
KURSEONG-734 203 DISTRICT-DARJEELING WEST BENGAL. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI ARJUN REGO, ADV.) AND :
1. KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY NAVANAGAR, HUBLI-585 025.
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.
2. C.M.R. LAW SCHOOL NO.5, BHUVANAGIRI, OMBR LAYOUT, BANASWADI, BANGALORE-560 043 REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL 3. THE REGISTRAR (EVALUATION) KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY, NAVANAGAR, HUBLI-580 025. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI R.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV. FOR R-2; R-1 AND R-2 SERVED.) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 QUASHING THE APPLICATION FORMS AS PER ANNEXS-B, C & D ISSUED BY THE R-1 UNIVERSITY TO THE PETITIONERS HEREIN AS THE SAME ARE ERRONEOUS AND INCORRECT.
IN W.P.Nos.61272 – 61275/2016 & 61571/2016: BETWEEN :
1. S.BHARATH KUMAR S/O N.SRIRAM, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/AT # 1535, ASHIRWAD BUILDING, OPP. K.H.B. COLONY, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGARPET TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 114.
2. SHRUTIKA SHUKLA D/O ARVIND KUMAR SHUKLA, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/AT # 177, FERNS HABITAT, DODDANAKUNDI, BANGALORE - 560 037.
3. ROHIT SAMSON S/O SWAPNA JAYAKAR, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/AT # 216, 11TH CROSS, 3RD BLOCK, HRBR LAYOUT, KALYAN NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 043.
4. KABANG JERANG S/O TARUNG JERANG, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/AT # 296, ANUGRAHA NILAYA, 5TH MAIN ROAD, AGB LAYOUT, HESARAGHATTA, BANGALORE - 560 090.
5. HARSHITHA K.M., D/O MANJUNATH K.N., AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/AT # 575, PUNYABOOMI LAYOUT, KALKERE, HORAMAVU POST, K.R.PURAM, BANGALORE - 560 043. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI ARJUN REGO, ADV.) AND :
1. KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY NAVANAGAR, HUBLI - 580 025 REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.
2. C.M.R. LAW SCHOOL NO.5, BHUVANAGIRI, OMBR LAYOUT, BANASWADI, BANGALORE - 560 043 REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL.
3. THE REGISTRAR (EVALUATION) KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY, NAVANAGAR, HUBLI - 580 025. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI GANAPATHI HEGDE, ADV. FOR R-1 SRI R.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV. FOR R-2; R-3 SERVED.) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 QUASHING THE APPLICATION FORMS AS PER ANNEXS-B, C, D, E AND F ISSUED BY THE R-1 UNIVERSITY TO THE PETITIONERS HEREIN AS THE SAME ARE ERRONEOUS AND INCORRECT.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 12.06.2017, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, S.SUJATHA J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioners are the students pursuing five years B.A.LL.B., course in the colleges affiliated to the 1st respondent-University. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the 1st respondent – University denied approval of their promotion/admission to the 3rd semester law course despite the petitioners clearing the 1st semester examination, on the ground that the petitioners-students had shortage of attendance for the 2nd semester. It is the contention of the petitioners that in the 3rd semester, the petitioners had more than the requisite of attendance of 70% and they were writing the 2nd semester examination as repeaters along with the 3rd semester examinations. The action of the 1st respondent-University declining to forward the application relating to payment of examination fees pertaining to the 3rd semester along with the 2nd semester backlog papers is questioned in these petitions.
2. learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.63253/2016 inviting the attention of this Court to the clarification issued by respondent No.1-University dated 27.9.2013 Annexure-J to the writ petition, submitted that Regulations 13 and 15 of the University governing the 5 year B.A. LL.B., Integrated degree course in law was considered and interpreted by the University clarifying that Rule 13 provides, the percentage of attendance required for writing the examination only and it is not for the purpose of promoting a student to the next semester. Similarly, it was clarified that Rule 15 is related to promotion of the student from one class to another. It was clarified that if a student could not write another end semester of one semester due to unavoidable reasons, by writing another end semester of the same academic year and by passing minimum of two subjects in it, can get promoted to the next year. Further it was contended that the University has clarified that if the student is not eligible to write the examination, he has to pay the examination fee for the remaining eligible to continue the course. In terms of the Regulations of the respondent No.1-University, the petitioners-students are eligible to get promoted to the 3rd semester and appear for the said examinations along with the backlog subjects of the 2nd semester as repeaters. The requisite criteria prescribed under the Regulation of the 1st respondent-University for promotion to the next class is a pass in minimum two subjects from either one semester or from two semesters of the academic year. In terms of the said Regulations, the petitioners are entitled for promotion to the 3rd semester. The respondent –University having clarified these aspects, cannot take a different stance now with a different version, defeating the rights of the petitioners-students. Annexure-A issued by the respondent-University is contrary to its own clarifications and accordingly, seeks for quashing the said communication with a direction to the university to approve the admission of the petitioners-students to the next class and declare/approve the results of the examinations to which they have appeared pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court besides permitting the petitioners-students to pursue the law course.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4-college supports the arguments advanced at the hands of the Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and submitted that the college acted on the clarifications issued by the University as regards the promotion of the students to the next class. The college has not denied any permission for the petitioners-students to appear for the 3rd semester examinations along with the backlog subjects of the 2nd semester as repeaters.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the connected matters supporting the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners- students and the college submitted that the 1st respondent –University is estopped by its own conduct of giving clarifications. The act of the respondent amounts to violation of the fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution, the unconscionable acts on the part of the respondent-university would adversely affect their career as it would result in losing the entire academic year.
5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent- University submitted that as per Regulation 13 of the University Regulations governing the course in question, the student has to fulfill 70% of attendance requirement in both the semesters respectively, then only the student is eligible to fill the examination form. Further, promotion to next class is from year to year, and promotion is only after keeping the terms of two semesters by attending 70% of the classes in both the semesters and other requirements. Keeping in the mind this Regulation, University has issued the communication dated 26.11.2016 Annexure-A. Further, the learned counsel placed reliance on Rule 12 of the Bar Council of India Rules of Legal Education Rules of 2008 which reads thus:
“No student of any of the degree program shall be allowed to take the end semester test in a subject of the student concerned has not attended minimum of 70% of classes held in the subject concerned as also the moot Court room exercises, tutorials and practical training conducted in the subject taken together.”
Applying these Rules to the facts of the case, the petitioners-students are not eligible to appear for 3rd semester examination along with backlog subjects of the 2nd semester. According to the learned counsel, there is no regulation to continue the petitioners-students as repeaters if the student had not appeared for the examination of a particular semester due to shortage of attendance unless the same is cured, the student is not entitled to the promotion for the next class. In support of his submissions, learned counsel placed reliance on the order passed by this Court W.P.Nos.26150- 161/2014 and connected matters (DD 18.9.2014).
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
7. Regulations 13 and 15 of the University Regulations are relevant in the context of the present case which runs thus:
“13. No student shall be permitted to appear for the end of semester examination in a given course unless he/she has to the satisfaction of the course teacher, fulfilled the course requirements and has put in not less than 75% attendance in the course concerned”.
“15. A student who passes in minimum two subjects from either one semester of the academic year or from two semesters of the academic year, shall be eligible for promotion to next class.”
8. A reading of these Regulations indicates that a student who passes in minimum two subjects from either one semester or from two semesters of the academic years, shall be eligible for promotion to next class. Regulation 13 is relevant for writing the examination and not for the purpose of promoting a student to the next semester; Regulation 15 contemplates that if a student could not write end examination of one semester by writing the end semester examination of the same academic year and passing in minimum two subjects from either one semester of the academic year or from two semesters of the academic year shall be eligible for promotion to next class. This is the interpretation and clarification issued by the University at the first instance. But departing from its own clarification, the University is setting up a new norm contrary to its own regulation, which cannot be accepted in the light of the Regulations discussed above. It is clear that for promotion to 3rd semester, the only condition as provided under the Rules is passing in minimum two subjects from either one semester of the academic year or from two semesters of the academic year which has been fulfilled by the petitioners. Hence, petitioners are eligible for promotion to third semester.
9. The Judgment in W.P.Nos.26150-161/2014 and connected matters relied upon by the learned Counsel for the University was rendered in a different context, where the percentage of attendance of each of the students was below the required attendance prescribed under the Regulations, as such, the college did not forward their examination application forms as per the mandatory instructions 3 and 4 issued in the Notification by the University. The students based on the doctrine of legitimate expectation contended that they were eligible to appear for the semester examination in December 2014 as the University had permitted the students to appear for the examination de hors lack of requisite 70% of attendance. In the present set of cases, the University permitted the petitioners- students to appear for the 2nd semester examination in the month of December 2016 as fresh students and denied their promotion to the 3rd semester and take up the examinations of the 3rd semester despite the students possessing the prescribed attendance for the 3rd semester. As aforesaid, the College/University has not objected the petitioners-students to take up the 2nd semester examination. Hence, the said Judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
10. The next question would be the entitlement of the petitioners-students to appear for the backlog subjects of the 2nd semester examination. No specific Rule/Regulation is pointed out by the learned counsel for the University to deny the permission to appear for the 2nd semester examination as repeaters. The contention of the University would have been appreciated if the petitioners–students have sought for the permission of the University to appear for the 2nd semester examination in June 2016. The application forwarded by the colleges was as repeaters. In fact, the petitioners had paid the examination fee as freshers in their first attempt but having failed to appear for the examinations for want of permission, now they are appearing for the examinations as repeaters.
11. Indeed, the University has issued the repeaters application form for December 2016 examination to the petitioners, but the status was shown as fresh. The petitioners-students were permitted to pay the examination fees, were issued application forms for the examination and were shown as eligible students in Form A issued by the University. The marks card fees were also paid by the petitioners- students. The petitioners submitted that they have been engaged in several extra curricular and co- curricular activities representing the College in sports, cultural, debating and other such events and some of them also have medical and health related issues owing to which they were precluded from attending the 2nd semester classes regularly which resulted in shortfall of attendance. It is evident that on account of indisposition, a fortiori, the petitioners-students had shortage of attendance in the 2nd semester but were permitted to appear for the December 2016 examination as fresh candidates. However, they had the requisite attendance for the 3rd semester.
12. It would be beneficial to refer to the observations made by this Court in Writ Petition No.7513/2012 disposed of on 14.03.2012 which reads as under:
“a) The second respondent is directed to hold the special classes after the completion of the term and before the commencement of the supplementary examination. In giving this direction, I am fortified by a Division Bench judgment of Madras High Court, as extracted in the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANOTHER v. S.V. BRATHEEP (MINOR) AND ANOTHER reported in (2004)4 SCC 513, while examining the issue of eligibility to admission.
The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted herein below:
“3. Since the learned counsel appearing for Anna University pointed out that admissions at this late juncture are likely to affect the University Attendance Regulations, we also direct that the shortage in the attendance of such students shall be compensated by holding special classes on Saturdays, Sundays and other holidays. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the engineering institutions have undertaken that teaching staff who are engaged for holding such special classes shall be paid extra and that no amount shall be collected by the institutions from the students.”
b) In the above-said case, the students were not made liable to pay the fees for the special classes, as their admissions took place belatedly. In the instant case, there are no lapses on the part of the Government or the College. Therefore, I hold and direct the petitioning student to pay for the special classes.
c) It is also made clear that attending the special classes and appearing for the supplementary examination are not to be thought of as a matter of right. It is for the Principal of the concerned College (in the instant case respondent No.2) to examine whether there were any extenuating circumstances for the petitioner for staying away from the regular classes. If he has met with an accident or if has suffered a serious illness or if there is bereavement in the family circle or if there is any other genuine reason, he should not lose one academic year. However, if the Principal, in exercise of his discretion, comes to the conclusion that the petitioner has been deliberately and wantonly staying away from the regular classes, then the petitioner is not to be given the permission to appear for the special classes and consequently to acquire the eligibility to appear for the supplementary examination. If the students are permitted to attend the special classes and appear for the supplementary examination in the routine course itself, that may have an undesirable effect of de-motivating the students and of sending the wrong signals to the adolescents.
d) If the petitioner makes good the shortage of attendance by attending the special classes, he has to be permitted to appear for the supplementary examination.
e) The Government and the concerned College may also consider holding the mass counseling camps to bring about the attitudinal change in the young minds. The parents shall also be associated with the holding of mass counseling camps to ensure that their wards do not lose the focus and later end up as an anti-social elements or extremists. It is necessary that an erring adolescent has to be reformed and reclaimed as useful members of the society. Every endeavour shall be made to bring about the reform in them. After all it is the mandate of the welfarist State.
f) I am informed at the bar that only such of the students who have appeared for the annual examination are eligible to appear for the supplementary examination. I am not in a position to appreciate the rationale behind such a restriction. The very purpose of holding the supplementary examination in June is to ensure that the students do not lose one academic year. It is also worthwhile to notice that earlier the supplementary examination was being held in September– October. It is now being held in June only to enable the bus-missing students to appear for the supplementary examination and seek admission to the higher course in the same academic year. The laudable object in holding this supplementary examination in June should not be squandered. I also take judicial notice of conducting of external courses, vocational courses, open-university examinations, etc. in Arts and Commerce subjects, where no practical examination is involved. If the students are permitted to appear for the examination straightway by studying at home, there is no reason why special classes should not be conducted for the College-going students, who miss the regular classes for valid reasons and to permit them to appear for the supplementary examination”.
This Judgment throws light on the significance of conducting supplementary examinations, vis-à-vis shortage of attendance. In the light of the said Judgment, the present batch of petitions are examined.
13. The Regulations prescribing minimum attendance level is the academic experts decision. The same requires to be scrupulously complied with by the students as attendance is not an empty formality. But, in the present petitions, the University is not allowing the petitioners-students to appear for the 3rd semester examination for the reason that the said students do not possess the requisite attendance for the 2nd semester which is not supported by any Rules/Regulations. The petitioners had the benefit of the interim order. Accordingly, they have appeared for the 2nd semester as well as 3rd semester examination during December 2016. In some of the cases, the results of the petitioners-students are also declared and they have faired well in the said examination. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the benefit of the interim orders be made absolute with a rider that the respondents may sentinel over the attendance of the petitioners-students for the remaining semesters notwithstanding taking the 2nd semester examination as freshers/repeaters. In the event of there being any shortage of attendance in any subsequent semesters, the petitioners-students shall not claim any equity nor shall make out grievance with regard to the same, since an indulgence is shown by this Court in this regard, the same shall not be misused by the petitioners-students.
14. Accordingly, taking into consideration all these aspects, the respondent-University is directed to approve the admission of the petitioners-students to 3rd semester and declare the results of the petitioners- students relating to 2nd semester/3rd semester, if not declared.
15. The respondent-University shall permit the petitioners-students to pursue their studies in the 5 year LLB Course accordingly.
Subject to the aforesaid observations, the petitions stand disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ln, AN/-