Karnataka High Court Declines Law Students' Plea Challenging Debarment From Writing Ninth-Semester Exams Due To Attendance Shortage

The Karnataka High Court has rejected petitions filed by 9th-semester law students seeking directions on the Karnataka State Law University to permit them to write their examinations, which they were not allowed to do since they did not meet the required attendance criteria.

A single judge bench of Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav dismissed the petitions filed by Dhanush B N and others.

The students are pursuing a Five Year (Semester Scheme) LL.B. Course and had contended that they were promoted to 5th year and attended the classes for the 9th Semester, but they were not permitted to write the examination due to their attendance being below the required 70%.

Their request to attend the classes for the 10th Semester was also turned down.

It was argued that amended Regulation 13 of the Karnataka State Law Universities Regulations governing the Five-year B.A. LL.B. Integrated Degree Course in Law, read with Regulation 15 would permit them to pursue the 10th Semester, even though they have not completed their 9th semester due to a shortage of attendance.

The University opposed the plea arguing that in terms of Regulation 15A(d), a student who does not fulfil the requirement of attendance, would not be entitled to progress in his course.

Findings:

The bench noted that Regulation 13 provides that a student shall be deemed to 'keep the terms' by sufficient attendance of 70% with a relaxation of 5% as envisaged under the provision.

Court said that the word 'keep the terms' would refer to adherence to the requirements stipulated regarding attendance. It noted that Regulation 15A(d) expressly provided that only a student who has kept the terms of a semester would be allowed to go to the next semester.

Following which it said “Despite failing in a subject, the student can be construed as having kept the terms, i.e., has adhered to the other requirements including attendance as envisaged under the Regulation 13. However, where a person does not adhere to the requirement of attendance as envisaged under Regulation 13, it can be construed that he/she has not kept the terms and accordingly, Regulation 15A(d) would prevent such student who has not kept terms as envisaged under Regulation 13 to progress to the next semester.”

It added, “Lack of sufficient attendance in terms of the Regulation 13 would result in the student not keeping with the terms and would be ineligible in terms of the Regulation 15A(d) to progress to the next semester.”

Thus it held that the plea of petitioners to attend the 10th semester will not be permissible, as they have not kept the terms of attendance as mandated under Regulation 13.

Rejecting the contention that once a student has been promoted to the 5th year, there cannot be a bar for progressing to 10th semester, the court said “Post the amendment in 2020, the insertion of terms, 'kept the terms' in Regulation 13 and insertion of Regulation 15A(d) providing for progression to the next semester, only if he has 'kept the terms' has altered the interpretation to be placed. The interpretation now to be placed is as discussed above. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief.”

Dismissing the petition the court said that the students were now entitled to take up the 9th semester along with the students of subsequent batches and only thereafter they would be permitted to attend the 10th semester.

Appearance: Advocate Yogesh V. Kotemath, for Advocate P.H.Virupakshaiah for Petitioners.

Advocate R. Girish Kumar, for R1.

Advocate M.P.Srikanth for R2.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 336

Case Title: Dhanush B N & Others AND Karnataka State Law University & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 14591 OF 2024 (EDN-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 17235 OF 2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order