AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Prithviraj K. Chavan, J",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard Mr. G. Agni, learned",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. C.A.Ferreira, learned counsel for Respondent nos.2 to 3 and Mrs. A. Agni, learned Senior Advocate for Respondent",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
No.4. Respondent no.5 - Bar Council of India though served, none appeared.",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
The Petitioner is a student of Govind Ramnath Kare College of Law, Margao Goa (Respondent no.2) appearing in the final year of Law",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
examination scheduled for 3 April 2018. Respondent no.1 is a Charitable Education Society, which runs various institutions. Respondent no.3 is the",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Principal of Respondent no.2 and also the Ex-officio Secretary of the Governing Council of Members of Respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 is,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
represented by Respondent no.3 herein.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
3 Respondent no.2 is the affiliated college, which receives grant-in-aid from the State Government and, therefore, “A State†within the meaning",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The Petitioner contends that on 3 March 2018, Respondent no.3 for and on behalf of Respondent no.2 had",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
displayed a notice on the college notice board informing the students of the fee structure and the schedule, which had to be strictly followed to",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
complete the filling of the forms for the final exsamination in April 2018. As per the said notice, the last date for submission of forms was 7 March",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
2018 and the examinations were to commence on 3 April 2018. As per the notice dated 3 March 2018, prior to the submission of examination",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
forms, every student had to obtain an approval of the concerned Mentor for submitting the examination forms in the college office. According to the",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Petitioner, following is the procedure, which is generally followed in the institution prior to submitting the examination form:",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Each student had to obtain a Note/Chit from the respective mentor with regard to his/her attendance.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
If the student fulfilled the attendance criteria, that sudent would be issued a Note/Chit by the Mentor allowing him to submit the form and pay the",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
fees to the clerk, and accordingly that student would submit the form at the counter and pay the examination fees.",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
In case the student was not able to satisfy the minimum attendance crieteria, the Mentor would issue a Note/Chit to that student that he has",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
insufficient attendance, and that student had to then meet the Principal Mr. Saba D'Silva along with the chit/note issued by the mentor, to obtain the",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
approval of the Principal.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
After meeting the student on one to one basis, the Principal would either allow the student to submit the form and pay fees or disallowed their",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
request to submit the form. If the student was allowed by the Principal, the Principal would in turn write on the said Note/Chit earlier issued by the",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Mentor that the student has been permitted to submit the form and pay fees.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
It is important to note that the College Clerk would accept the forms and fees after receiving the abovesaid Note/Chit either from the Mentor or,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
from the Principal.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
The Petitioner accordingly filled examination form for,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Semester VI on 6 March 2018 to be submitted to the Goa University. On 7 March 2018, the Petitioner was issued a note by his Class Mentor",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Mrs.Ruby Luis, which stated that the Petitioner was falling short of attendance and, therefore, he was asked to meet the Principal i.e. Respondent",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
no.3. It is the contention of the Petitioner that the attendance shown on the note by his Mentor Mrs.Ruby Luis is incorrect as none of the,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Petitioner’s exemptions and medical leave were added to it. The Petitioner had also informed Respondent no.3 that he had represented the,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
College at Athletics event conducted by the Goa,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
University at Bambolim stadium and that he had also participated in various legal aid activities for which he is entitled to exemption in accordance,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
with Ordinance OA-17 of the Goa University. Respondent no.3, however, denied the Petitioner’s request.",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
According to the Petitioner, the Principal had a personal prejudice against him, which motivated him to deny the Petitioner permission to answer the",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
examination, despite having required percentage of attendance. It is also the contention of the Petitioner that he had learnt through credible",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
sources that a few students falling short of attendance were allowed by the Principal to submit their forms and pay the examination fees. Thus, the",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Petitioner alleges discrimination and bias attitude of the Principal towards him. The Petitioner had obtained names of those students through an,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
application under the Right to Information Act.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
The Petitioner contends that the college has an official website where the students' attendance is uploaded from time to time, and the students are",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
directed to check their attendance. As per the website record, the petitioner had following attendance:",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
“(a) Labour Law II- 45.68% (without addition of medical               leave and sport exemption),",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
(b) Criminal Procedure Code-87.65%,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
(c) Intellectual Property Rights-85.19%â€,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
As such, it is his contention that besides having a good academic record, he is also a sportsman and had regularly represented the institution in",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Badminton and Athletics at the inter collegiate and the University level.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
He contends that he had participated in the athletics meet conducted by the Goa University held at Bambolim Stadium between 18 January 2018 to,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
20 January 2018. As a preparatory exercise for all athletic meet he had to undergo a full day training session conducted by the College itself, which",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
commenced from 8.30 a.m. and lasted till 5.30 p.m. in the evening also. His training session was for a period of 10 days prior to athletics meet.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
As such, in terms of OA-17 of the Goa University, the petitioner claims exemption of 13 days, pursuant to his 10 days of preparatory training camp",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
and three days athletics meet. He also claims 5 days exemption pursuant to participation in legal aid activities. The aforementioned exemptions have,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
not been intentionally taken into account while calculating the Petitioner’s attendance. He states that if these exemptions had been added to the,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
attendance, he would have the requisite minimum 50% attendance in Labour Law Part-II and overall 75% attendance to be eligible for semester",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
examination.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
The Petitioner made a representation dated 19 March 2018 to the Respondents, in view of the aforesaid factual background. He had also made a",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
representation to the Vice Chancellor of the Goa University seeking an enquiry into the grievances raised by him as to the manner of arbitrary,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
functioning of the Principal of the College and to take corrective measures inter alia, seeking review of the decision of the Principal permitting the",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Petitioner to answer the Semester VI examination of third year LL.B. There was neither any response from the Respondents nor the issue has been,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
resolved and, therefore, he has approached this Court seeking relief in the form of Certiorari and Mandamus against the Respondents setting aside the",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
notice/action debarring the Petitioner from appearing in the examination in the final Semester and directing the Respondents to accept examination,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
form of the Petitioner, forwarding the same to the Goa University and allowing the Petitioner to answer the examination in question.",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Respondent nos.2 and 3 in their affidavit in reply denied almost all the averments in the petition. It is contended that the petition contains false,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Sr.
No.",January 2018,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20
,,Practice days,,,,,,,,,,,Event days,,
1,Labour Law,"S
U
N
D
A
Y",A,A,A,A,P,A,"S
U
N
D
A
Y",A,A,A,A,A,A
2,"Criminal Procedure
Code",,P,P,A,A,P,P,,A,A,A,A,A,A
3,"Intellectual Property
Rights",,P,A,A,P,A,A,,P,A,A,P,A,P
,"admission to
S.Y.LL.B",,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,Sem I,"April
2016",208 $8/500,"43.2% ( with
Grace )",Pass,,,,,,,,
2016-17,"SYLL.B
Degree","G. R. Kare
College of
Law,
Margao","Sem
III","Oct
2016",Appeared,,Fail,,,,,,,,
,,,"Sem
III","Apr
2017","183#10
$7/500",40% ( with grace ),Pass,,,,,,,,
,,,Sem IV,"Apr
2017",Appeared,,Fail,,,,,,,,
2017-18,"TYLL.B
Degree","G. R. Kare
College of
Law,
Margao",Sem IV,"Oct
2017",Appeared,,Fail,,,,,,,,
,,,"Sem
V","Oct
2017",Appeared,,Fail,,,,,,,,
,,,"Sems
IV &
V","Apr
2018",Appearing,,  -,,,,,,,,
In exercise of powers conferred under Sections 7(1) (h) and (i), 24 (1) (c), (iii) and (3a), 49 (1) (af), (ag) and (d) of the Advocates Act, 1961,",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
the Bar Council of India has framed the “Rules of Legal Education, 2008â€. As rightly argued by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Respondent no.4 that these Rules will override the Goa University Ordinance, and that the Ordinance itself provides so. Rule 12 of the Legal",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Education Rules, 2008 reads as under:-",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
“12. End Semester Test:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
No student of any of the degree program shall be allowed to take the end semester test in a subject if the student concerned has not attended,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
minimum of 70% of the classes held in the subject concerned as also the moot court room exercises, tutorials and practical training conducted in the",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
subject take together.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Provided that if a student for any exceptional reasons fail to attend 70% of the classes held in any subject, the Dean of the University or the Principal",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
of the Centre of Legal Education, as the case may be, may allow the student to take the test if the student concerned attended at least 65% of the",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
classes held in the subject concerned and attended 70% of classes in all the subjects taken together. The similar power shall rest with the Vice,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Chancellor or Director of a National Law University, or his authorised representative in the absence of the Dean of Law.",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Provided further that a list of such students allowed to take the test with reasons recorded be forwarded to the Bar Council of Indiaâ€.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
The learned counsel for the Petitioner emphasised on OA 17.3 (i) of the Goa University as regards attendance and eligibility to appear for the,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
examination. The learned counsel stressed that as per OA-17, which is effective from 30 November 2007 and is applicable and enforceable as against",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Respondent no.2, the Lecturer is required to maintain a paper/course-wise attendance register recording the attendance taken by the Teacher for",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
each lecture on day to day basis. Our attention is drawn to OA 17.3 (ii) which reads thus:-,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
“OA-17.3 (ii) Attendance shall be taken on a day to day basis for all the students and shall be cumulative of all the months of the,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Semester/Term/Year (in case of annual examination), as the case may be, for deciding the eligibility to appear for the respective examination. The",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
statement of the attendance shall be prepared paper-/course-wise and month-wise and the same shall be displayed on the Notice Board. A copy of,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
this statement shall be sent to the University for recordsâ€.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
     Since, no such attendance was displayed on the notice board by the Respondents, as mandated by the Ordinance and there was no oral",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
or written notice issued to the Petitioner by the College calling upon him to justify his alleged absence, it is argued that injustice has been done to him.",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
We cannot accept the arguments of the Petitioner. Firstly, the Bar Council of India Rules mandates that a student must have 70%",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
attendance. The responsibility of being vigilant is on the student. Even if his own contention as averred in the petition coupled with the documents,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
tendered on record are taken cumulatively, it would show that the Petitioner has failed to meet the minimum required attendance of 70% as per Rule",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
12 of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008. Respondent no.4 has taken a clear stand that the Rules of Bar Council of India would prevail over its",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Ordinance. That being so, there is absolutely no scope for the Petitioner to rely upon the Ordinance of the University.",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
While exercising writ jurisdiction especially when a writ ofCertiorari is invoked, we are required to exercise care, caution and circumspection",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as we cannot sit in appeal and adjudicate the disputed questions of facts. The Petitioner had a very low,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
attendance in Labour Law, Code of Criminal Procedure and Intellectual Property Rights, as per the Chart depicted hereinabove. The Respondents",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
have questioned Certificate   Exhibit P-7 tendered by the Petitioner in order to substantiate his contention that he will have to be treated “on,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
duty†as he had represented the institution for the athletics meet conducted by the Goa University held at Bambolim Stadium between 18 January,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
2018 to 20 January 2018 and further he had undergone a full day training session from 8.30 a.m. to 5.30 p.m., for a period of 10 days. We do not see",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
any reason to disbelieve the stand taken by Respondent nos.2 and 3 for the simple reason that the record maintained by the Respondents is in their,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
regular course. During the Course of the arguments, an opportunity was given to the Petitioner by us to ascertain his attendance from the record",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
which he did not avail.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Insofar as the claim of the Petitioner for the attendance in legal aid activities seeking exemption for such attendance, no details are set out.Â",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Respondent nos.2 and 3 have made their stand clear that as per their record all such activities for the year 2017-18 were held beyond the Lecture,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
hours of the Petitioner's classes and, therefore, there was no question of the Petitioner requiring to skip any of the Classes/ Lectures in order to attend",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
the legal aid activities and, therefore, there is no question of claiming exemption on that count.",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
As regards the attendance from the website of the college is concerned, it is the contention of the Respondents that the Campus Management Site",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
with a link shown in the website of the college has been used on a trial basis and, therefore, any information obtained by the Petitioner from the",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Website cannot be said to be correct and authenticated information about the attendance of the students. An example is given by the Respondents that,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
the days on which the Petitioner claimed exemption when he was “absent†website shows his “presence†in the system.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
The importance of legal profession in a democratic society where the rule of law governs, role of a student of law has been well explained by this",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Court in the case of in Inamdar Vahab Badasha and others Vs. Symbosis Society's Law College, Pune and others AIR 1984 BOMBAY 451 .  It",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
would be apposite to reproduce the relevant portion from para 18, which reads thus:",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
“It cannot be denied that fixing a particular percentage for admission to the new course is an important step towards improvement of the standard,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
of legal education. Considering the complexity of the legal system and ever expanding sweep of the legislation in a welfare state having a democraric,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
system and committed to social, econnomic and political justice, a student aspriring to have legal career must have the basic equipment needed to",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
acquire knowledge of humainties which deal with various facets of the complex modern human life. One of the methods of ensuring that only such,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
students take up law course as have aptitude for it, is to lay down a minimum qualifying standard for admisisons. No profession can maintain high",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
standard if it is allowed to be inundated by persons who reluctantly took up the law course because having failed to secure admission to the courses of,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
their choice, they have nothing else to do. The prescribed minimum qualification, therefore, has a rational nexus to the purpose sought to be achieved.",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
We also do not feel that the percentage fixed is in any manner arbitrary. It is reasonable, and more so in view of the general patern of percentage of",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
marks generally obtained at the qualifying examinationsâ€.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
In case of Aparna Basu Mallick Vs. Bar Council of India 1982 SCC Online Cal 18 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed held:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
“14. Now under Section 7, one of the functions of the Bar Council of India is to recognise universities whose degree in Law shall be a qualification",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
for enrolment as an Advocate and for that purpose to visit and inspect the universities. This power of recognition of universities is conferred where the,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
degree of Law of that university entitles the degree-holder for enrolment as an Advocate. Under Section 24(1) (c)(iii) which is relevant for this,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
purpose, a person shall be qualified to be admitted as an Advocate on a State roll if he fulfils the conditions of having undergone a three-year course of",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
study in Law from any university in India which is recognised by the Bar Council of India. Sub-section (3) of Section 24 is an exception clause to sub-,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
section (1) as it begins with a non obstante clause which entitles a person to be enrolled as an Advocate under special rule made in that behalf. No,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
such rule was relied upon as having been made under subsection (3) of Section 24. Section 49(1)(d) empowers the Bar Council of India to make rules,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
which may prescribe the standards of legal education to be observed by universities in India and the inspection of universities for that purpose. If the,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
acquisition of a degree in Law is essential for being qualified to be admitted as an Advocate on a State roll, it is obvious that the Bar Council of India",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
must have the authority to prescribe the standards of legal education to be observed by universities in the country. On a conjoint reading of these,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
provisions of the Act with Rule 1(1)(c) in Part IV of the Rules which prescribe the standards for legal education and recognition of degrees in Law as,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
well as admission as Advocates, it is difficult to understand how one can say that the said Rule is inconsistent with any of the provisions of the Act.",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
What Rule 1(1)(c) requires is that the course of study in Law must be completed by regular attendance at the requisite number of lectures, tutorials",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
and moot courts in a college recognised by a university. As pointed out earlier, this Court in Baldev Raj Sharma case pointed out that there was a",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
substantial difference between a course of studies pursued as a regular student and the course of studies pursued as a private candidate. The policy,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
underlying the relevant provisions of the Rules is to lay emphasis on regular attendance of the Law classes. It is, therefore, clear that a candidate",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
desiring enrolment as an Advocate must fulfil the conditions set out under the relevant clause of Section 24 read with Rule 1(1) (c) of the Rules. In the,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
present case since both the candidates admittedly did not pursue any regular course of study at any college recognised by the university by attending,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
the Law classes, lectures, tutorials and moot courts, they cannot be said to have complied with the requirements for enrolment as an Advocate. In that",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
view of the matter we think that the view taken by the Calcutta High Court in Aparna Basu Mallick v. Bar Council of India is erroneous.""",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Thus, it is made clear that the policy underlying relevant provisions of the Rules is to lay emphasis on regular attendance of law classes. A student",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
desiring enrolment as an Advocate, therefore, must fulfill the conditions set out under the relevant Rules. Since the Petitioner herein did not attend the",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
requisite number of Classes/Lectures, he cannot as of right claim any exemption. In case of Ankita Meena Vs. University of Delhi 2018 SCC",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Online Del 9049 the Petitioner, who was undergoing IV Semester LL.B course, could not attend classes due to her pregnancy. Her attendance in",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
the III Semester was 86%. She was not permitted to appear in the IV Semester. In the said case, Rule 2(9) (d) of the Ordinance VII of",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Chapter III of the Delhi University, which is the general provision, which does not deal with the professional courses like LL.B., provides that a",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
married woman, who remains on maternity leave, is entitled to benefit of the relaxation attendance from the said period, while calculation of her",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
attendance. The Delhi High Court in its judgment referred to the decision of the same Court in case of Smt. Deepti Vs. Vice Chancellor,",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
University of Delhi in WP (C) No.18051/2006Â decided on 20 April 2007. It would be apposite to refer to Para 14 of the judgment in case of Deepti,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Vs. Vice Chancellor, University of Delhi, which reads thus:",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
“14. Before parting with the case, we are obliged to state that the field of legal education has its own sacrosanctity. With the passage of time,",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
the field of law is getting a larger canvas. A well organized system for imparting of education and training in law has become imperative. In a,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
democratic society where the rule of law governs, a student of law has a role to play. Roscoe Pound has said ""Law is experience developed by reason",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
and applied continually in further experience"". A student of law has to be a dedicated person as he is required to take the study of law seriously as",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
pursuit of law does not countenance any kind of idleness. One may conceive wholesome idleness after a day's energetic and effective work. An,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
active mind is the mother of invention. A student prosecuting study in law, in order to become efficient in the stream of law, must completely devote to",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
the learning and training. One should bear in mind that learning is an ornament to continuous education and education fundamentally is how one,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
engages himself in acquiring further knowledge every day. If a law student does not attend lectures or obtain the requisite percentage of attendance,",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
he cannot think of taking a leap to another year of study. Mercy does not come to his aid as law requires a student to digest his experience and,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
gradually discover his own ignorance and put a progressive step thereafter.""Â",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
By way of indulgence, we had granted ad-interim relief permitting the Petitioner to appear for VI Semester of the three year LL.B programme,",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
which was to be commenced from 20 April 2018, subject to the condition that the Petitioner will not claim any equity whatsoever on the ground of",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
such permission to appear for the examination. The ad-interim relief was purely by way of indulgence subject to the result of the Petition. In view of,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
the observations made hereinabove, we are of the view that the Petitioner is not entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court.Â",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Consequently, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. There is no order as to costs.",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,