R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

1. This writ petition presents a bleak picture of how the Regulations framed by the 1st respondent-Karnataka State Law University have been violated, putting the career of the law students in jeopardy.

2. The petitioners are students of Five Year Law Course, studying in the 2nd respondent-institution. The crux of the matter is regarding the shortage of attendance of the petitioners either in the 4th semester, 5th semester, 6th semester or 7th semester, etc., and not withstanding the deficiency, they are permitted to write examinations and the petitioners have been promoted to the next year course. In brief, the allegation against the petitioners is that, say in the 4th semester (end-of-semester examinations of the 2nd year) since, there was shortage of attendance, such a student could not have been permitted to take up the examinations, in terms of Regulations 13 of “Regulations Governing The Five Year B.A., LL.B (Hons.) Integrated Honor’s Degree Course in Law” (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulations’ for short). Such students in terms of Regulations 15(ii)(a) is required to repeat the course. However, all the petitioners were permitted to take up examinations, inspite of shortage of attendance and their succeeding in the examinations and proceeding to the next year, is an admitted fact. In fact, some of the petitioners have completed the entire course and have been issued certificates of having passed the Five Year Course and they have been practicing or some of them have taken up Bar examinations.

3. In the background of such scenario, the petitioners are before this Court calling in question the notice dated 09.10.2019 at Annexure-A1 issued by the 2nd respondent-institution. In the impugned notice, the 2nd respondent-institution has informed the students that the result of some of the students have been withheld by the University, whose names are mentioned at Annexure-A1 appended to the notice. On enquiry, it was found that the University had taken objections that students who had shortage of attendance in a particular semester must seek readmission to the same academic year. The 2nd respondent- Institution sought for clarification in terms of a letter dated 19.09.2019 to which the University has replied vide a communication dated 03.10.2019 at Annexure-A2 that the said students cannot proceed to next semester and have to seek readmission. It is therefore stated in the impugned notice that the Institution being bound by the directions of the University, has directed all the students whose names are found at Annexure-A1 appended to the notice to take readmission to the same year where there was shortage of attendance. It is in this background that the instant writ petition has been filed calling in question the notice dated 09.10.2019 at Annexure-A1.

4. Sri M.V.Vedachala, learned Counsel submits that the impugned notice is absurd, such a direction at the hands of the respondents cannot be fulfilled. It is submitted that under similar circumstances, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Malavika Ramanand Vs. Karnataka State Law University in W.P.No.63253/2016 and connected matters which were disposed of on 29.06.2017 has held that there is no specific requirement in the Regulations which could deny permission for third semester students to take up the second semester examination as repeater. Further, in the case of Miss.B.P.Komal Vs. M.S.Ramaiah College of Law and Another in W.P.No.50654/2019 which was disposed of on 20.01.2020, by virtue of an interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner therein who was declined hall ticket to appear for the 9th and 10th semester examinations on the ground of shortage of attendance, was permitted to take up the examination. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner therein took up the examination and succeeded, but marks card was not issued in view of the pendency of the writ petition. Under such circumstances, the co-ordinate bench held that the petitioner cannot be asked to re-write all the examinations of the 9th semester so as to overcome shortage of attendance. Therefore, the respondent-State was directed to issue marks card and Degree Certificates to the petitioner.

5. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the first respondent- University submits that there cannot be any manner of doubt that if a student has shortage of attendance i.e., less than 75%, such student is not permitted to take up the end-of-semester examination. The proviso to Regulation-13 would only empower the Principal of the respective Institution to condone shortage of attendance to an extent of 5% i.e., 70% of the classes in each subject, for reasons to be recorded in writing and permit such student to take up the examination. The learned Counsel submits that Regulation 15(i) would provide that a student who has completed all the Courses prescribed in the two semesters in an academic year by securing not less than forty percent of the marks in each of the Courses shall be eligible to pursue his studies in the next academic year of the programme. It is also submitted that in terms of Regulation 15(ii), the University is entitled to permit a student in the second academic year even if he has not successfully completed three out of all the Courses prescribed for study in the first academic year. Similarly, the University is also entitled to permit a student of the third year although he has not successfully completed three out of all the Courses prescribed for study of the second year, provided he has successfully completed all the Courses prescribed for the first year of the programme. In other words, it is contended that if a student has shortage of attendance and is not permitted to take the end-of-semester examination for want of attendance, such student has to repeat the Course.

6. The learned Counsel would also draw the attention of this Court to the notification dated 10/13.05.2019 at Annexure ‘R5’ along with the memo dated 20.02.2020, whereby special instructions are given to the Principals of all the Institutions affiliated to the University that after the last working day, the Principals shall intimate fulfillment of attendance requirements of the students in the prescribed proforma compulsorily. The learned Counsel would therefore submit that it was the bounden duty of the Principals of the Institutions to furnish in a prescribed proforma, the names of students who fulfill the attendance requirements. The University would thereafter issue hall tickets to such of the students who fulfilled the attendance requirements. The learned Counsel submits that such special instructions have not been followed by the second respondent- Institution which are mandatory in nature.

7. Learned Counsel for the second respondent-Institution would submit that the Principal of the Institution has complied with the directions and instructions given by the respondent- University. However, along with the statement of objections filed by the second respondent-Institution, no information is provided to justify the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners.

8. Heard the learned Counsels and perused the petition papers.

9. During the course of the arguments, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that Regulation-15 has undergone an amendment in the year 2011. In the earlier Regulations, it was provided that no student shall be promoted to the next year of the Course unless he/she had passed in a minimum of one subject in each semester. However, by the Amendment, 2011, the prescription was that student should have passed in a minimum of two subjects in either semester or one subject in each semester. This amendment may not have any bearing on the facts of the present case. What is required to be considered is whether the respondent-University could direct the affiliated Institutions to call upon all such students who had shortage of attendance in a particular semester to seek re-admission to the same academic year.

10. As noticed earlier, all the petitioners were permitted to take up the examination inspite of they having shortage of attendance. Their results have been declared. All the petitioners have proceeded to next higher class. In fact, some of the petitioners have completed the entire course and they have taken up the Bar examination. In respect of all other petitioners, they have proceeded to the higher class, all of them are now in the final year of the Course. The shortage of attendance is of the 4th, 5th and 6th or 7th semesters. Therefore, in the light of such factual assertion, would it be permissible for the University to direct the petitioners to once again take re-admission to the 2nd year or 3rd year or 4th year of the Course, is the question. As rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, such a direction would be absurd. If a student is studying in the final year course, he or she cannot be expected to take up the second year Course or third year course simultaneously. If at all the Regulations were implemented in the right spirit, a student who was short of attendance should have been denied hall ticket, in the natural course, such a student would have repeated the course. On the other hand, if a student has been permitted to the next higher class, the Regulations make provision for repeating the subjects where such a student has failed. In such a scenario, there is no requirement of a student who has been promoted to the next class to attend to the previous semesters. Such a student is permitted to repeat the subjects where he has failed. This is commonly known as ‘supplementary examinations or repeat Examinations’. There is nothing in the Regulations which would prescribe that though a student has been promoted to the next higher class, he or she shall also repeat the previous course and rightly so. Logically, a student cannot attend two years Course at the same time. The same has been made possible only because of non-adherence of the Regulations.

11. As noticed, in the special instructions given to the Institutions vide notification dated 10/13.05.2019, the Principals of every Institution were required to furnish in a prescribed proforma the names of students who fulfill the attendance requirements. As and when such information was made available to the University, the University would issue the hall tickets only in favour of such of the students who fulfill the attendance requirements. Such an exercise having not been undertaking in terms of the special instructions, it has given rise to the present situation where even though the petitioners had shortage of attendance in a particular semester, they were permitted to write the examination. Their results have been declared and the petitioners have proceeded to the next higher class. In such a scenario, the respondent-University would issue a blanket notice or instructions to the affiliated Institutions to call upon the students such as the petitioners to undergo re-admission to the 2nd year or 3rd year or 4th year while some of the petitioners are now in the final year of the Course and as stated earlier, some of the petitioners have even completed the course and are out of the Institution. It is very difficult to fathom the intent of the respondent-University in waking up to such glaring deficiencies after permitting the students who had shortage of attendance to take up the examinations.

12. In the light of the discussion made above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the case of the petitioners presents a very peculiar case. At any rate, the respondent- University cannot call upon the petitioners to seek re-admission to the Semester where they had shortage of attendance.

13. In view of the above, the impugned notice dated 09.10.2019 cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed. At this stage, it is also to be noticed that the respondent-University has not cancelled the results announced in respect of the petitioners or any other candidate. The University has not cancelled the Certificates and marks cards which have already been issued in favour of the petitioners herein. Therefore, the respondent-University is specifically precluded from passing any order or notice or instructions to cancel any of the marks cards or certificates already issued in favour of the petitioners herein. The respondent-University shall also not preclude the petitioners from taking up the examinations for the Course which some of the petitioners have now pursued. Needless to observe that in the present semester, if there is shortage of attendance in respect of any of the petitioners in terms of the Regulations, the respondent-University can take action and not otherwise. Per contra, if there is no shortage of attendance of the petitioners in the present semester and if they successfully complete the examinations, the respondent-University shall issue the marks cards and Degree Certificates, without causing any difficulty to the petitioners for the alleged shortage of attendance as noticed in the impugned Notice.

14. Needless to observe at the cost of repetition that these orders are passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and therefore, this order shall not be taken as a precedent in any other case.

15. It is ordered accordingly.