Bhargav D. Karia, J.

1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for directing the respondent to rescind its decision of debarring the petitioner for appearing in the end-term examination as per emails dated 20.06.2022 and 23.06.2022. It was further prayed to allow the petitioner to appear for the end-term examination which was scheduled to commence from 29.06.2022.

2. This Court passed the following order on 28.06.2022 permitting the petitioner to appear in the end-term examination which was scheduled to be commenced from 29.06.2022 without creating any equity in favour of the petitioner and further directed that the result of the petitioner would not be declared during the pendency of the petition:

"Heard Mr. Arjun Joshi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the decision to debar the petitioner from appearing in the end-term examinations on a purported claim of low attendance. Mr. Joshi, learned advocate submitted that the petitioner was informed of the present decision with less than two weeks to the end-semester examinations, which are scheduled to be commenced on 29.06.2022.

2.1 Mr. Joshi, learned advocate submitted that the said decision is unfair, arbitrary and clearly fails to comply all the Attendance Policy as Bar Council of India Legal Education Rules, 2020 and fails to account for the petitioner's request of exemption on serious medical grounds. Mr. Joshi, learned advocate submitted that the petitioner is pursuing LL.M. from the respondent University and currently in his second and last semester and the petitioner secured 69% in his first semester.

2.2 Mr. Joshi, learned advocate placed reliance on the communication dated 20.06.2022 and communication dated 23.06.2022, which are duly produced at Page 19 and 20, respectively.

3. From the communication dated 23.06.2022, it appears that the committee held that "(i) the petitioner shall not be eligible to appear in two subjects (LL.M. CMSL & G) i.e. Paper 202 and 203 on account of attendance shortfall below 75%, (ii) the petitioner is allowed to appear in other three subjects, (LL.M. CMSL & G) Paper 201 and 204 (online subjects) and 205 (Dissertation), (iii) Committee has further decided that the petitioner may appear in Paper 202 and 203 in next academic year 2022-23 (2nd Semester) provided the candidate fulfills the other requisite criteria".

4. Issue notice making it returnable on 14.07.2022.

5. In the meantime, the petitioner be permitted to appear in the end-term examinations, which are scheduled to commence from 29.06.2022 without creating any equity in favour of the petitioner and it is further directed that the result of the petitioner shall not be declared pending present petition.

Direct service is permitted TODAY."

3. The brief facts of the case are as under:

3.1 The petitioner was a student pursuing LL.M. course from the respondent-University. On 19.09.2021, the respondent-University informed to all the prospective students including the petitioner who had secured admission to join virtual orientation programme on 20.09.2021 in the second semester of LL.M. Course.

3.2 The respondent thereafter issued the information circular dated 20.11.2021 stating that the classes for the first semester would be conducted via hybrid mode between 01.12.2021 and 10.12.2021 and thereafter, only in physical mode from 13.12.2021. The students were asked to report on campus with relevant documents.

3.3 On 03.12.2021, the respondent announced re-opening its campus and asked students to reach campus by 13.12.2021. The petitioner, in response, informed the date of his arrival with the respondent-Institute. Thereafter, vide notification dated 07.01.2022, a decision was taken by the respondent to conduct all its classes online with immediate effect till further orders. A time-table for Semester-I for online class with a link for the same was published.

3.4 By Email dated 18.02.2022 all the students were informed by the respondent for resumption of physical classes from 02.03.2022.

3.5 Vide notification dated 2.03.2022, the respondent informed the students with regard to scheduled classes of Semester-II starting from 03.03.2022 ending on 24.06.2022 and examination schedule was also published for Semester-II from 27.06.2022 to 16.07.2022.

3.6 It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was undergoing the treatment for piles from 03.04.2022 and was advised rest for seven weeks as per the certificate dated 07.05.2022 issued by Dr. Basavaraj V. Sankanagoudar of Sanjeevini Clinic, Hubli. As per the medical certificate, the petitioner was found to be fit to resume the attendance from 08.05.2022.

3.7 Thereafter, the respondent-University issued the end-semester examination timetable indicating that the first examination is scheduled on 29.06.2022.

3.8 The petitioner received a letter dated 20.06.2022 from the respondent-University that his overall attendance is only 55% as the petitioner did not attend the classes in the month of April, 2022 and for the first 10 days of May, 2022 and therefore, the petitioner was found ineligible for appearing in the end-semester examination starting from 29.06.2022.

3.9 The petitioner thereafter replied that he was undergoing treatment for piles and he had pursued online course diligently during this period and therefore, it was requested to review the decision with prayer to permit the petitioner to appear in the end-term examination.

3.10 Respondent-University by letter dated 23.06.2022 informed the petitioner that a Committee was formed to decide with regard to the eligibility of the petitioner to appear in the end-semester examination, however, as the petitioner did not inform the respondent with regard to his health concerns and has remained absent in the physical classes which started in the month of March, 2022, the Committee decided that the petitioner would not be eligible to appear in the exams of two subjects whereas the petitioner would be allowed to appear in exams of other three subjects.

3.11 The petitioner again requested the respondent to reconsider the decision.

3.12 Being aggrieved by the decision of the respondent University the petitioner has preferred this petition.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Arjun Joshi for the petitioner submitted that as per the attendance policy for the post graduate courses and programme of the respondent-University, the petitioner is eligible for appearing in the examination.

4.1 It was submitted that as per Clause (e) of Rule 1 with regard to attendance, stated in the Attendance Policy for all Diploma/Undergraduate and Postgraduate Courses/Programme, it is provided that the status report on attendance shall be notified twice, once in the middle of the semester and before the End Semester Examination.

4.2 It was submitted that the petitioner was never informed about his status report of attendance and straightway by letter/email dated 20.06.2022, just before 09 days of the date of examination, the petitioner was informed that he would be ineligible to appear in the end-semester examination starting from 29.06.2022. It was submitted that the respondent-University has failed to adhere to the attendance policy and therefore, the decision taken by the respondent-University in contravention of the attendance policy is required to be quashed and set aside and the result of the petitioner may be declared as the petitioner was permitted by this Court to appear in the examination.

4.3 Learned advocate Mr. Joshi thereafter, referred to the notification dated 02.01.2021 issued by the Bar Council of India relying upon Rule 10 of the Bar Council of India Legal Education (Post Graduate, Doctoral, Executive, Vocational, Clinical and other Continuing Education) Rules, 2020 [for short 'Rules, 2020'] to submit that Rule 10 provides for Conduction for running any PGP Course. Sub-clause 2 thereof stipulates that minimum number of working days would be 18 weeks with minimum 90 working days excluding the orientation program, examinations and viva.

4.4 It was submitted that in the facts of the case, as per Rule 10(2) of the Rules, 2020, the petitioner is fulfilling the attendance of the working days of the entire second semester as the respondent-University has not adhered to the conduction of the running of the semester of 18 weeks with minimum 90 working days because the semester has started in the month of March and has ended in the month of June with less than 18 weeks working during the entire semester. Reliance was placed on the notification prescribing the academic calendar for the academic year 2021-2022 wherein, it was scheduled to start the semester from 08.11.2021 but in fact, it was started from March 2022. It was therefore, the respondent-University failed to conduct the semester as per the Rule 10(2) of the Rules, 2020.

4.5 It was further submitted that the respondent-University has not given any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to prove the veracity of the medical certificate dated 07.05.2022 issued by Dr. Basavaraj V. Sankanagoudar of Sanjeevini Clinic, Hubli inasmuch as by email dated 23.06.2020, the Committee has taken ex-parte decision rejecting the request of the petitioner to appear in end-semester examination. It was submitted that even as per the Committee, the petitioner was not found eligible for two subjects but the petitioner was permitted to appear in three subjects.

4.6 It was submitted that the petitioner ought to have been permitted to appear in exam for all the subjects of the end-semester as it was the last semester of the LL.M. course pursued by the petitioner. It was submitted that there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to remain absent without any reason but the petitioner was compelled to remain absent due to suffering from piles and the petitioner has pursued the course online for the period for which he remained absent.

4.7 It was submitted that the denial to the petitioner to appear in the two papers would spoil career of the petitioner as the petitioner will have to pursue the entire course again and he would waste one semester which he has studied for the year 2021-22.

5. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Amin appearing for the respondent-University submitted that the petitioner has remained absent in the almost entire Semester-II. It is submitted that the petitioner belongs to Hubli and he has gone to native place and has not attended the physical classes though he was supposed to attend such classes.

5.1 It was submitted that the petitioner failed to achieve the minimum attendance and therefore, the petitioner is found to be ineligible. It is further pointed out by learned advocate Mr. Amin that the petitioner has never informed the respondent-University about his absence on the ground of medical illness and only after the petitioner was served with notice of his ineligibility to appear in examination on 20.06.2022, the petitioner has furnished the medical certificate dated 07.05.2022 of Dr. Basavaraj V. Sankanagoudar of Sanjeevini Clinic which also is not inspiring any confidence.

5.2 In support of his submissions learned advocate Mr. Amin relied upon the following averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent university:-

"6. It is submitted that the medical certificate dated 20.06.2022 was sent by the petitioner to the school (SICMSS) of RRU which stated about his medical condition i.e. he was suffering from Piles and Fishes. It is pertinent to mention here that the said medical certificate was issued on the same day when the university had communicated to the present petitioner with regard to his short fall of attendance. It is of paramount importance to note that the petitioner has not approached this Hon'ble Court with clean hands and is trying to mislead this Hon'ble Court as also university. It is pertinent to mention here that the medical certificate which was sent to the university has different date and facts and the certificate which is produced before this Hon'ble Court has different date and facts. It is further submitted that both are contradicting. The medical certificate given to university is annexed and marked as "Annexure - R1" to this reply.

7. The medical certificate which was submitted by the petitioner clearly states that the petitioner needs complete bed-rest. It is pertinent to note that when the petitioner was advised complete bed-rest however, in the same period the petitioner has completed his internship from 04.04.2022 to 05.05.2022 which clearly shows the malafide intention of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner never informed the university about his condition nor did he take any prior approval from the university for his absence. The university policy is very clear for the absence from university owing to medical condition. It clearly states that the medical certificate provided by the student needs to be endorsed by the university doctor. It appears that the petitioner has not done the same. The university policy is hereby annexed and marked as "Annexure--R-2" to this reply.

8. It is submitted that the petitioner was negligent about attending the classes due to which a committee was formed and it was ascertained that the attendance of the petitioner was much below the requisite percentage i.e. 75% which is as per the university attendance policy and it is beyond the power of the university to condone it. From the above facts it clearly shows that the petitioner used to attend the classes according to his wish and will and the same fact was admitted by the petitioner that he being negligent on his part for not officially communicating and not taking necessary approval from university for his absence regarding the said class. It is submitted that the university follows a sad system of taking attendance and recording the same in a said pattern as promulgated while physical classes were undertaken. From the said facts of this petition it is clear that the non-availability of the petitioner from 17.03.2022 to 11.05.2022, that petitioner possibility of attending classes is completely ruled out. The petitioner has annexed the copy of the policy at "Annexure-K" of his petition which is irrelevant reason being that it is an old policy. The relevant portion of the existing policy marked as "Annexure-R-2" to this reply is mentioned herein below for ready reference of this Hon'ble Court.

"Attendance of minimum 75% of the total number of classes held in each subject is compulsory. Student failing to obtain 75% attendance in a given subject is Prohibited and shall not be allowed to appear in the semester, end examination for that subject and will be required to re-register himself for that subject when it is again scheduled to be offered in regular course. Provided, the percentage of physical attendance required in each subject shall 75%. The percentage shall stand to be automatically changed upon changes effected by the University. In case, if the change is effected during an on-going academic semester, the amended requirement shall be effective from the following academic semester. If a student for any exceptional reasons (approved co-curricular and extracurricular activities, medical, bereavement reasons) fails to attend 75% of the classes held in a subject, the Chief Examiner may allow the student to take the exam, with the approval of the concerned Committee and the Director, if the student concerned attended at least 60% of the classes held in the subject."

11. It is further submitted that for taking any internships program it is mandatory on the part of the student to take prior approval from the concerned committee. The respondent had placed the extended internship program (EIP) guidelines dated 05.08.2021 for perusal of this Hon'ble Court. The copy of the said extended internship program EIP guidelines is annexed hereto and marked as "Annexure R-3" to this reply.

12. It submitted that, the said guidelines clearly states that before going for the extended internship program the students has to take prior approval from the Course Coordinator, School Director and Internship and Placement Section of the university. Under such circumstances, the petitioner had never taken any written approval from the University for Under-going any internship program. Under such circumstances, the internship undergone by the petitioner cannot be considered by the university.

13. It is submitted that Petitioner's contention about health has been inconsistent as he has produced medical certificates of different dates which shows clearly shows the misrepresentation of facts and malafide intention of the petitioner.

14. The petitioner was allowed to appear for two subjects; the said exam was conducted as the classes were undertaken online by the Emeritus Resource Faculty of the university. Hence, it is an accepted norm and the attendance is subject based."

5.3 Referring to the above averments it was submitted that the petitioner has rightly been not permitted to appear in the two subjects as the petitioner failed to achieve the required attendance with regard to both the subjects. It was submitted that the Committee has considered case of the petitioner sympathetically and has therefore, permitted the petitioner to appear in three subjects.

6. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties it appears that the attendance policy of the respondent-University stipulates that the petitioner should be informed about the attendance report twice; once in the middle of the semester and before the end-semester examination. It is undisputed fact that the petitioner was never informed about the status report of attendance at any point of time except by letter dated 20.06.2022 whereby the petitioner was informed that the petitioner would be ineligible to appear in the end-semester examination just nine days before the starting of the examination.

7. The attendance policy refers to the attendance of minimum 75% of the total number of classes held in each subject. 75% attendance is compulsory and for exceptional reason, the attendance of at least 60% of the classes held in the subject is compulsory. In the facts of the case, admittedly, the attendance of the petitioner for two subjects was less than 60% as found by the Committee appointed by the respondent university and therefore, the petitioner was permitted to appear in three subjects and was found ineligible to appear in other two subjects by the Committee.

8. The attendance rules framed by the respondent-University are mandatory rules and therefore, respondent-University has rightly not made any relaxation in applying such attendance rules. It is also emerging from the record that the petitioner has not informed the respondent-University with regard to his ill-health till notice by letter dated 20.06.2022 was served up on him to intimate that he was ineligible to appear in end-semester examination and after considering the representation of the petitioner and verification of the record, the Committee permitted the petitioner to appear in the examination of three subjects. Respondent No. 1 has also filed further affidavit stating that the petitioner was undergoing internship from 04.04.2022 to 05.05.2022 with ICICI Lombard but such certificate issued by ICICI Lombard was not found to be genuine as per letter dated 06.05.2022.

9. Be that as it may, from the above narration of facts it is clear that there are disputed questions of facts. Therefore, the petition is not required to be entertained. However, it is suffice to say that the petitioner has admittedly not achieved the mandatory attendance of 60% of the classes held with regard to two subjects. In that view of the matter, the decision of the respondent-University cannot be said to be illegal or contrary to the Rules.

10. The attendance policy of the respondent-University for all Diploma/Under Graduate/Post Graduate Courses/Programme provides that the minimum attendance required in each course shall not, in any case, be less than 80% of the scheduled classes in the course. It is further provided in Rule 1(d) that for beyond 10% of any genuine case, the decision to condone the absence will be taken by the Director General on merits. The minimum attendance requirement in each course shall not, in any case, be less than 60% after all relaxation. Hence, the minimum attendance which a student is required to attain is 60% and admittedly the petitioner has not achieved such mandatory attendance of 60% qua two subjects. When the petitioner has not achieved the mandatory attendance, reliance placed by the learned advocate for the petitioner on the attendance policy that the status report on attendance was not notified twice is of no consequence as the petitioner was aware about not attending the classes.

11. Similarly, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner with regard to Rule 10 of the Bar Council of India Legal Education (Post Graduate, Doctoral, Executive, Vocational, Clinical and other Continuing Education) Rules, 2020, is also not tenable as the respondent-University has conducted the course in the period of Covid-19 Pandemic and therefore, the minimum working days prescribed under Rule 10(2) of the Rules cannot be applied in such peculiar situation.

12. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner was permitted to appear in the examination of three subjects where he was found to have attended the courses even in hybrid manner permitted by the University for more than 60% times. Therefore, the approach of the respondent-University can be said to be equitable approach permitting the petitioner to avail the benefit of appearing in the examination of the three subjects where he has already attended for more than 60% which is the minimum attendance after all relaxation and hence, the petitioner is rightly not permitted to appear in examination of two subjects by the respondent-University.

13. In view of the above facts emerging from the record and for the forgoing reasons, the petition is not entertained and the same is accordingly dismissed. Notice is discharged.