Dayan Warsi vs The Vice Chancellor NLSIU and another. Writ Petition 9749/2020 decided on 18 December 2020.
Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/354337/1/WP9749-20-18-12-2020.pdf
Relevant paragraphs: II (b)…the subject Regulations which wear both a right situation- reason and a clear scope-criterion on their face yield reckonability and justice; one has to bear in mind that what is being construed are the Campus Regulations and not the Cattle Trespass Act; true it is that, law speaks through language and not music; the rules which are promulgated to regulate & discipline the young minds in educational institutions should sing justice; this happens if a purposive construction based on language, purpose and discretion, is placed on these Regulations that admit a range of possibilities; they also vest some discretion since their purpose does not point to a single, unique legal meaning regardless of myriad circumstances; respondents ought to have used discretion to formulate, as objectively as possible, the purpose at the core of the legal text; however, they have been unjustifiably swayed away by the Rule of Textualism, to the prejudice of the poor student.
Regulation II (5) & (6) provide for condonation of shortage of attendance on non-medical grounds upto a maximum of 20% of the total classes conducted; the condonable range of attendance shortage on medical grounds between 75% & 67% is less than 20% of the total classes; the extent of condonable shortage cannot differ depending upon the varying grounds availing therefor; in other words, if a maximum condonable shortage of 20% on non-medical grounds does not compromise educational excellence, the same shortage on medical grounds too logically does not; if that be so, a Regulation prescribing less than 20% as the condonable limit of shortage cannot be treated as mandatory; it hardly needs to be stated that petitioner’s shortage of attendance by simple arithmetic works out to be far below the maximum condonable extent.
III (a) The precedents & practice of the University show that the subject Regulations have been treated only as directory, and not mandatory; pursuant to Court’s direction dated 11.11.2020, the Registrar of the University has filed an affidavit admitting that in a case of one particular student, condonation has been granted even when the he had less than prescribed minimum of 67% attendance; in a serious matter like this involving the career of a student, the argument of the kind that “one sparrow makes not the summer” (Shakespeare’s) would not come to the rescue of respondents; it is more so when it is not their case that this condonation was legally inadmissible; for the same reason, the principle that there is no estoppel against law, is not invocable.
It is noteworthy that this assertion of the petitioner on oath is not disputed by the respondents nor they have produced any record to discount its veracity; in fact, the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents arguably borders perjury, since information relating to condonation of attendance in respect of above three more students has been withheld from the Writ Court with no justification whatsoever despite a specific direction; ideally speaking the respondent law University ought to have stated about the fact in the very beginning when it had filed its Statement of Objections; this is unjust & unfair, to say the least; however, it is not desirable that on this ground per se, the defence of the respondents be struck off.
V. As already mentioned above, in several cases the University had granted condonation of shortage of attendance under the very same Regulations; however, in the case of the petitioner, a step-motherly treatment is meted out to his detriment; this is not a happy thing to happen at the hands of the University which enjoys a great academic reputation in the country; the Apex Court in PRINCIPAL, KING GEORGE’S MEDICAL COLLEGE, “16. Whether the Regulations contained in the Ordinance governing admission to the post-graduate course of studies are mandatory or directory is a matter which the University shall have to consider after taking all relevant factors into account like the nature of the requirement, its purpose and the consequences of its relaxation on educational excellence.…One thing, however, must be made clear that if the University considers that any provision is not mandatory, its relaxation in particular cases has to be governed by objective considerations. No public authority, least of all a University which is entrusted with the future of the student community, can pick and choose persons for receiving the benefit of relaxation of the Regulations. In the first place, the rigour of a rule can be relaxed provided such relaxation is permissible under the Regulations or if the rule is directory and not mandatory. …”
In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition succeeds; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned endorsements dated 31.7.2020 & 17.8.2020 respectively at Annexures-H & M; a Writ of Mandamus issues directing the respondents to promote the petitioner to the 4th year B.A. LL.B (Hons) for the academic year 2020-21, forthwith.
Compiled by S. Basavaraj, Advocate, Daksha Legal.
Daksha Legal 