Manoj Kumar vs University of Rajasthan and Others

Alok Sharma, J.—The case of the petitioner is that he is a student of Government Law College Sikar (hereinafter the College'') affiliated to University of Rajasthan (hereinafter ''the University'') in the 3 year LLB course commencing 2012-13. He passed the Ist year LLB examination and following academic year 2013-14, examination of LLB IInd year were to be conducted in June, 2014. The petitioner due to his illness did not have the requisite minimum 75% attendance in class as required by Ordinance 144(3) of the University of Rajasthan Ordinances. Consequently the petitioner was not issued permission letter/admit card for the said examination. It is alleged that in doing so the University overlooked the certificate of petitioner''s illness submitted to college, which vide letter dated 28-5-2014 forwarded it to the University and requested the Registrar of the University to take a sympathetic view and allow the petitioner to write the LLB IInd year examination. But to no avail.

In the aforesaid circumstances the petitioner approached this court by this writ petition inter alia stating that education was his legal and fundamental right and that holding back the permission letter/admission card for reason of petitioner''s not having requisite 75% attendance in classes without reference to the petitioner''s illness, evidenced by a medical certificate and recommendation of the Principal of the College, where the petitioner was reading for sympathetic consideration, was wholly arbitrary. It was prayed that this court direct the respondent University to exempt the petitioner from the requirement of 75% attendance in classes for IInd year LLB and allow him to appear at the IInd year LLB.

On the matter coming up before this court, vide interim order dated 9-6-2014 while issuing notice to respondents, it was directed that the University allow the petitioner to write the LLB IInd year examination. It was however made clear that the interim order would not confer any equitable right on the petitioner and the petitioner''s rights would be finally determined on the basis of merits of the case in the writ petition to be adjudicated by the court on receipt of the reply of the respondents.

Reply to the writ petition has been filed by the University stating therein that as per his own admission the petitioner did not have the requisite minimum 75% attendance in LLB IInd year classes, and in terms of Ordinance 144(3) he was not entitled to write the examination of LLB IInd year. It has been submitted that there is no provision in the governing ordinances for any relaxation on attendance requirement of any student. It was submitted that even otherwise the medical certificate submitted by the petitioner appeared to be a palpably forged document. According to the medical certificate the petitioner was allegedly suffering from "backache from 2-9-2013 to 4-10-2013, yet this certificate was submitted by the petitioner to the college on 28-5-2014 after a delay of over seven months of the petitioner''s purported illness preventing him from attending classes. This fact, according to the University, indicates that the medical certificate in issue was got prepared by a pliant doctor to somehow find a way out for the petitioner and facilitate him write the LLB IInd year Examination, 2014 despite shortage of requisite 75% attendance in classes. It has been further pointed out that aside of the petitioner, about 20 other students submitted similar medical certificates in an attempt to overcome the consequences of not having 75% attendance in classes, and oddly the majority of such students have reported to be suffering from the illness of "backache". It has been prayed that as in the circumstances the petitioner had no legal right to agitate, the writ petition be dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including ordinance 144(3)(a) of the University of

(a) LLB Examination

A candidate shall be required to put in at least 75% attendance in lectures in each subject and also in tutorials, moot courts and practical training courses.

Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any provision which provides that the requirement of minimum 75% attendance in classes for a student for writing an examination of the law faculty can be waived/relaxed on any count. The petitioner cannot thus make out any case of breach of his alleged right of writing an examination warranting interference at the hand of this court. The right to write an examination is not a common law or fundamental right but a statutory right. No permission to write an examination can be given contrary to the statutorily prescribed eligibility. The interim order dated 9-6-2014 passed by this court where under the petitioner has provisionally written LLB IInd year examination 2014, is of no avail for the reason detailed above as also the fact that the order itself clarified that writing of examination in issue provisionally under the court''s interim order would not confer any right in equity in favour of the petitioner.

Aside of aforesaid, in my considered opinion, there is substance in the argument of counsel for the University that the purported illness of the petitioner during the period 2-9-2013 to 4-10-2013 as per the medical certificate submitted by him is fake, inasmuch as the alleged backache suffered by the petitioner was brought to the notice of the college on 28-5-2014, after a period of over seven months. I have also taken note of the fact that about 20 students, from the same Government Law College Sikar submitted similar medical certificates for waiver of the requirement of minimum 75% attendance in law classes, and majority of such students were reported to have suffered the same illness of backache. his coincidence does not appear to be accidental but an outcome of a conspiracy, mechanically executed to facilitate the petitioner in a misdirected attempt to circumvent the mandatory requirement of minimum 75% attendance in law classes as a condition to writ an examination in the law faculty of the University of Rajasthan. It is well know that some Doctors unfortunately violate their hippocractic oath while issuing medical certificates to the disrepute of their profession, otherwise largely peopled by extraordinary professionals dedicated to serve society.

For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Dismissed.