- (1.) THE prayer in the writ petition is for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to write the IV semester examination II year B.L.(Five years course), Dr.Ambedkar Government Law College, Chennai.
(2.) M.P.No.1 of 2009 is for a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioners to write the IV semester, II year B.L.(Five Years Course) examination to be held on 06.7.2009. M.P.No,2/2009 is for a direction to the third respondent to receive the fees and permit the petitioners to sit in the III year B.L.(Five years course). The petitioners who are all the students of Dr.Ambedkar Government Law College (hereinafter referred to as "the Law College") have filed the above writ petition for a direction to permit them to write the IV semester examination of the II year B.L., (Five years course). According to them, they are studying in II year B.L., of Five years course at the Law College. They claimed that they have promptly attended the course and had written the examinations in the previous year. Due to some unforeseen circumstances an incident had occurred on 12.11.2008 within the Law College premises and the College was indefinitely closed due to law and order and security reasons and they were effectively prevented from attending the classes. After long interval, the classes were suddenly reopened on 31.3.2009 and all the students were having rural background and due to want of individual communications they could not attend the classes in time. After 20 days, they attended the classes during last week of April 2009 and thereafter, all the students paid the examination fees and hall tickets were also processed and the hall tickets were handed over to them. But it was noted that there is shortage 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 of respondents preventing the students from appearing for the IV semester examination and the examination was scheduled to be held on 06.7.2009 and when the petitioners were not allowed to write the examination, there was irreparable loss and detrimental to their career. Therefore, they sought for a direction to permit them to appear for the examinations. In this regard they sent a representation on 22.6.2009, but the same is of no avail. Therefore, they have approached this Court by way of this writ petition for the relief abovementioned on the ground that the act of the respondents is arbitrary and the respondents ought to have considered the unforeseen events that took place on 12.11.2008 and the action of the respondents is unreasonable. (i)The first respondent has filed counter and stated that at the outset, they denied all the averments except those that are specifically admitted. In respect of paragraphs 2 and 3 of the affidavit of the petition the respondent has no remarks to offer. It is further stated that the classes were suddenly reopened on 31.3.2009 and after a long interval the petitioners has also attended the classes for nearly 20 days alone during the last week of April 2009. When the petitioner is aware that the College was reopened on 31.3.2009 he would have attended the classes from the date of reopening instead of blaming that he could not attend the classes due to want of individual communication. The Directorate of Legal Studies have given wide publicity of reopening of the Colleges through 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 a minimum attendance of 75% of lectures on each of the subjects as also at tutorials, moot courts and practical training course: Provided that in exceptional cases for reasons to be recorded and communicated to the Bar Council of India, the Dean of the Faculty of the Law and the Principal of Law Colleges may condone attendance short of those required by the Rule, if the student has attendance 66% of the lectures in the aggregate for the semester 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 of Studies Meeting held on 22.06.2004 resolved as follows: "It is resolved to recommend to the Syndicate that if a student fails to earn sufficient attendance in one semester, the student will not be eligible to take that semester examination and will not be allowed to continue in next semester and the student must redo the entire semester in which he/she lacked sufficient attendance and only on completion of that semester in which he/she has to redo, will be allowed to continue the next semester." Further the 53rd Special Meeting of the Syndicate held on 22.6.2004 resolved to approve the abovementioned resolution. (iv) It is the stand of the respondent that no student will be allowed to write the examination unless he has earned the minimum required attendance for that semester and he has to redo the entire semester in which he had lack of attendance. This University is strictly adhering to the attendance regulations prescribed by the Bar Council of India and the same is being followed by the affiliated Law Colleges also. Therefore, the respondent has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition with exemplary costs.
(3.) (i) The third respondent, the Principal of the Law College has filed counter. It is stated that the petitioners approached this Court for a direction to write the IV semester examination. By the order of this Court dated 01.7.2009 in W.P.No.11671/2009, as an interim measure, the respondents were directed to permit the petitioners to write the IV semester II Year B.L.(Five Years course)examination scheduled to commence from 6.7.2009 and it is also made clear that the results of the examination shall not be published until further orders and that the interim order was passed subject to the result of the writ petition and also that the interim order shall not confer any additional rights on the petitioners and the petitioners could not make any further claims based on equity. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the petitioners were permitted to write the examinations and this writ petition is pending. (ii) In the counter it is also stated that the petitioners have failed to secure the attendance as per the University regulations. As per the order of the University in Letter No,2308/Aca/Regr/A1/2009 dated 25.6.2009 the number of working days in the semester was fixed as 75. However, the petitioners have earned very low attendance as mentioned below: TABLE As per the Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University Rules relating to attendance, the candidates who secured more than 75% of attendance are eligible to write University examinations. Condonation eligibility on recommendation by the Principal of the College is 66% and above but less than 75%. Candidates who have secured less than 66% of attendance have to redo the full course of one year in the subsequent academic year irrespective of the number of days falling short of attendance by obtaining prior permission for admission from the Director of Legal Studies and the Tamilnadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University on payment of fees prescribed for readmission. A candidate who fails to earn the required attendance in an odd semester is not eligible for promotion to the ensuing even semester and he shall redo the same odd semester in the subsequent year. (iii) The third respondent has also stated that as per the regulations of the Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University, students who secured 75% and more attendance are eligible to write the University examinations and be promoted to the next semester. The Principal can recommend to condone shortage of attendance, if a student secures atleast 66% of attendance. A student who secures less than 66% of attendance is not eligible to appear for the University examinations and for promotion to the next semester course, the student has to redo the course as per the University regulations. As the petitioners have failed to earn the required attendance, they are not eligible for promotion to the next semester and they shall redo the entire semester as per the University regulations. Only if a student is eligible for promotion, he can be permitted to pay the fees and join the next semester course and as such, the petitioners are not entitled to get the relief prayed for in this writ petition. The last date for admission for the academic year 2009-2010 was also over on 7.8.2009. (iv) The respondent has also specifically averred that in W.P.No,27115/2008 the First Bench of this Court has directed that the attendance of the students should be strictly enforced. In view of the above, the respondent has prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. The strong contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that it is because of the unforeseen circumstances and due to the closure of the Colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu on account of student unrest in Dr.Ambedkar Government Law College, Chennai and on an incident took place on 12.11.2008 and the disturbance in the High Court premises the petitioners failed to get the minimum attendance and it is not an intentional one in not attending the classes and it is because of the fear or apprehension in the minds of the students that if they attend the classes there may be certain unforeseen circumstances again. Therefore, they have attended the classes a minimum of days. He would also submit that the prescribed attendance rules could not apply when a large number of students lack attendance and therefore it is special and peculiar circumstance which took place and the University as well as the Government have also taken note of the entire circumstances and certain concessions were allowed by the University by taking a resolution by accepting the proposal of the Director of Legal Studies for condonation of attendance for 30 days and it is uniformly in respect of the Central Law College, Salem the condonation for 30 days was allowed in respect of all the classes and all the students. However, this has been restricted to the petitioners' case and in the affiliated colleges for 15 days. Therefore, the petitioners could not get the benefit of concession allowed by the University.;