REVIEW PETITION--425/2017. Case: DEEN DAYAL UPADHYAYA COLLEGE Vs. AYUSHI SETHI AND ORS.. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | REVIEW PETITION--425/2017 |
| Citation | NA |
| Judgement Date | November 21, 2017 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 17.11.2017 Pronounced on: 21.11.2017
+ REVIEW PET.425/2017, CM APPL.36526/2017 IN LPA 582/2017
DEEN DAYAL UPADHYAYA COLLEGE ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Beenashaw. N. Soni, Advocate.
Versus
AYUSHI SETHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Dr. Ashutosh, Advocate, for Review Petitioner. Sh. Mohinder. J.S. Rupal, Advocate, for University Delhi.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
%
1. The Deen Dayal Upadhyay College [hereafter referred to as College”] had appealed against the decision of the learned Single Judge dated 25.08.2017, allowing the writ petition preferred by seven of students. The College had refused permission to the students to appear in the fourth semester examination of B.Com (Hons) course [hereafter referred to as “the examination”], on 09.05.2017. Learned Single Judge after considering all the pleadings and the relevant Ordinances of University, held that the refusal to permit the students to appear in
examination was not correct and issued appropriate directions in regard. This Division Bench, by its decision of 12.09.2017, reversed learned Single Judge’s judgment.
2. The writ petitioners/students appear to have approached Supreme Court by appeals through Special Leave which were, after some hearing, permitted to be withdrawn. They have, therefore, approached this Court for a review of the judgment dated 12.09.2017.
3. Dr. Ashutosh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the writ petitioners argues that the Division Bench in its judgment ignored and did not into account the material part of the regulations which mandated at five days’ clear notice to the students, as to enable them to represent against their likely exclusion on the basis of shortage of attendance Particular emphasis is placed upon Ordinance VII(2)(e) which reads follows:
“ORDINANCE-VII(2)
(a) A candidate for the Semester I/II/IV Examination shall not be deemed to have satisfied the required conditions of attendance unless s/he has attended, in all the subjects taken together, not less than two thirds of the lectures/practical/presentation/tutorial required to be attended. Provided that a student of the Semester I/III/V who does not fulfill the required conditions of attendance, as above, but has attended, in all the subject taken together, not less than 40 percent of lectures/practical/presentations during the respective semester, may at the discretion of the Principal of the College concerned, appear for the ensuring semester examination; but such a candidate shall be required to make up the deficiency at lectures and practical, in the next semester of the same academic year.
Provided that a student of the I/III/V semester who does not fulfill the required conditions of attendance as above, but has attended in all the subjects taken together, not less than 40 per cent of the lectures/practical/presentation/tutorials, held during the respective semester, may at discretion of the Principal of...
To continue reading
Request your trial