'Step Motherly Treatment By University' : Karnataka High Court Grants Relief To NLSIU Student Who Was Denied Promotion Citing Attendance Shortage

A single bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit while allowing the petition filed by Dayan Warsi, strongly disapproved the approach of the medical officer of the university who refused to attest the medical records of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner's attendance being about 65%, was less than the prescribed 67%.

The Court noted that the University had condoned attendance shortage to several other students despite their attendance being shorter than the prescribed percentage.

The bench said "Denial of admission to the petitioner to the 4th year of the course is on the specific grounds that he has a shortage of attendance in two courses and he has secured 'F' Grade in Criminal Law III (3rd year, VII Semester). Respondents have invoked provisions of AER 2020 which this Court has already held to have no retrospective effect in W.P.No.11287/2020 between AAKASHDEEP SINGH Vs. NLSIU & ANOTHER, that being the position, case of the petitioner ought to have been treated under AER 2009, and not under AER 2020 wrongly; thus there is an error apparent on the face of the record, that has caused enormous prejudice to the petitioner."

The University had even argued that under AER 2009 which are mandatory, petitioner is not entitled to condonation of attendance shortage since he had a little less than 67% of attendance which is the minimum prescribed for seeking condonation.

Referring to Regulations: Clauses (a) & (c) of Regulation II (1) of AER 2009 the court said "There is no explicit preamble or purpose clause in these Regulations."

It added:

"One has to bear in mind that what is being construed are the 'Campus Regulations' and not the 'Cattle Trespass Act'; true it is that, law speaks through language and not music; the rules which are promulgated to regulate & discipline the young minds in educational institutions should sing justice; this happens if a purposive construction based on language, purpose and discretion, is placed on these regulations that admit a range of possibilities; they also vest some discretion since their purpose does not point to a single, unique legal meaning regardless of myriad circumstances; respondents ought to have used discretion to formulate, as objectively as possible, the purpose at the core of the legal text; however, they have been unjustifiably swayed away by the Rule of Textualism, to the prejudice of the poor student."

The bench said:

"Much is being made out with the English words namely, 'in' employed and 'of' not employed in the text of subject Regulations or the vice versa; such a jugglery of words does not protect their impugned action; after all, law is not a slave of dictionary; it is not the case of respondents that the petitioner is a habitual defaulter or that he would have gained advantage by courting absence from the classes."

Following which the court allowed the petition.

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.9749 OF 2020

Date of Order: 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020

Coram: JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

Appearance: Advocate V R SARATHY for petitioner

Advocate ADITYA NARYANA, for respondents.