A student cannot claim condonation of attendance shortage more than twice
Kerala High Court Upholds University's Decision on Attendance and Practical Training Requirements Court dismisses petitioner's plea to condone attendance shortage for a third time and emphasizes adherence to academic regulations
In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court has upheld the decision of the Bar Council of India and associated bodies, dismissing the petition filed by Shahbaz M Harris. Harris, a student of the 5-Year BBA LLB (Hons.) course at the Government Law College, sought permission to appear for his 10th Semester Examination despite failing to clear the 9th Semester due to attendance shortage and non-completion of mandatory practical training requirements.
Presided over by Mr. N. Nagaresh, J., the court clarified that University Rules permit condonation of attendance shortage only twice during an entire course. Harris, who had already availed condonation twice previously, could not be granted a third condonation, as per the court's interpretation of the university regulations.
Harris asserted that he had attended classes regularly and met the minimum attendance criteria required for the 9th Semester, but the consolidated attendance sheet indicated only 64.6% attendance against the required 70%. The court noted that Harris's actual physical attendance stood at a mere 44%, which was insufficient for progression to the next semester, even after accounting for additional claims made by him.
Further, Harris alleged that the college failed to conduct the prescribed number of classes, as stipulated under the Rules of Legal Education 2019. He claimed that while 540 hours were required for the semester, only 235 hours were conducted. However, the court found these claims unsubstantiated and held that the college adhered to the academic calendar published by the university.
The court also emphasized the importance of completing practical training components, specifically the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Practical Requirements, which Harris had failed to complete. The college authorities maintained that Harris scored only 47 marks in the ADR Practical Paper and did not fulfill all necessary components, which further justified his detention in the 9th Semester.
Upon examining all submissions, the court concluded that Harris's petition lacked merit. The court asserted that it cannot intervene to direct the university to condone attendance shortage for a third time, given the established regulations. Consequently, Harris was directed to seek re-admission to the 9th Semester with the subsequent batch.
This judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to university regulations regarding attendance and practical requirements. It serves as a reminder to students about the necessity of fulfilling academic obligations to ensure smooth progression through their courses.
Bottom Line:
A student cannot claim condonation of attendance shortage more than twice during the entire course period as per University regulations. Attendance and completion of practical training are mandatory for progressing to the next semester.
Statutory provision(s): University Rules on attendance condonation, Rules of Legal Education 2019
Shahbaz M Harris v. Bar Council of India, (Kerala) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2793840
