Meghalaya High Court: In a writ petition instituted by a 5th Semester law student of Shillong Law College to condone the shortfall in attendance of 70% for which he has been held to be ineligible by the College to take the End Semester Exams (5th semester Exams), H. S. Thangkhiew, J. refused to grant any relief to the student citing Rule 12 of the Legal Education, 2008 which allows relief to only extent of 65%, and whereas the student had only attended 60% classes.
The student submitted that he was unable to meet the required attendance due to medical conditions, for which he had undergone an operation in November 2024. Citing that the reason was genuine and that he is an exceptional student without any back paper to date, his prayer should be considered. Hence, sought directions to the College to enable him to appear for the examinations.
The case of the College was that though the student’s case was genuine, the College was bound by the Rules of Legal Education, 2008, (‘Rules’) wherein with regard to the End Semester examinations, the proviso for condonation is only to the extent of 65% for a particular subject, and 70% for overall attendance. It was also submitted that the student attended only 60% of all the classes, therefore as per the Rule, he cannot be held to be eligible to take the examinations.
The Court perused Rule 12 of the Rules which elucidates that-
“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 taken 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 the Vice Chancellor or Director of a National Law University, or his authorized representative in the absence of the Dean of Law.”
The Court said that it was an undisputed fact that the student obtained only 60% attendance. Hence, the Court ruled that by the operation of Rule 12, he was rendered ineligible to sit for the End Semester exams. The Court stated that, though this Court understands the predicament that the student was facing, however, due to the mandate of law, no relief was forthcoming by way of the instant petition.
[Bamang Nabam v. North Eastern Hills University, WP(C) No. 441 of 2024, decided on: 03-12-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: P. Yobin, Adv., B. Ramsiej, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): S. Sen, S. Chakrawarty, Sr. Adv., E. Laloo, Adv.
The post appeared first on .