IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon’ble Justice Jay Sengupta WPA 17553 of 2024 Himadri Poddar Vs St. Xavier’s University and others. For the petitioner : Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee Mr. Satyaki Banerjee .....Advocates For the respondent nos. 1 to 6 : Mr. Partha Sarathi Sengupta, ld. Sr. Adv.. Dr. R. N. Jhunjhunwala Mr. Ramesh Kumar Patodia Ms. Megha Agarwal Mr. Mohit Gupta Mr. Milind Mohul Ghosh .....Advocates Heard lastly on : 07.07.2026 Judgment on : 29.09.2026 2 Jay Sengupta, J: 1. This is an application praying, inter alia, for direction upon the respondent University not to withhold the candidate/the petitioner from moving to the next semester and from taking all examinations on the ground of alleged lack of attendance. Several other similar matters were taken up for hearing together, but one after the other. Common points were canvassed. Therefore, this Court would be taking into consideration all the contentions raised by the concerned parties while deciding this petition. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted and has relied on the written notes as follows. The writ petitioner was pursuing her 6ª semester B.COM LLB Hons course from the St. Xavier's University. ii) Petitioner's brother suffers from Duchene muscular dystrophy which is a terminal rare disease, the suffering of her brother the petitioner had severely effected her so much so that she herself developed mental illness and is under medicine since 2022, she has also been diagnosed with self ideation, a condition when one thinks of dying by suicide, such severe medical condition has also contributed to missing some of her classes; iii) Petitioner was advised with 2 weeks home rest by her treating doctor because of suffering from throat infection and fever on and from 12.02.2024; iv) The university in its affidavit in opposition (xiii) c) had admitted she had missed 14 classes during said period; none of the missed classes during this period were condoned; v) That apart attendance of one of the subject, Transfer of property "BCHLCC610T" was not properly uploaded of the inspite of petitioner attending 15 classes out of 24, only 4 were uploaded, as many as 3 11 classes remained unmarked such irregularity was immediately brought to the notice of the Dean Law who had assured necessary corrections will be done. The said paragraph is dealt with in paragraph 17 of the opposition there is no denial to the fact that the petitioner had approached the Dean Law who had assured necessary correction, I submit that that the University has merely averted according to available record and the claim of the petitioner is that the recordings were wrong. Further the Dean Law was changed and the University did not even venture to find out the veracity of petitioner's claim with the erstwhile Dean Law; vi) Though a prayer for condonation was made to the university on 09/05/2024, 10/05/2024 and on 07/07/2024 the same was not considered; vii) Total number of classes attended as per attendance view is 174, total number of classes are 287 thus the aggregate attendance comes to 60.62% however the aggregate attendance as per the attendance view is 61.76% condoning 12.5 classes would have made her aggregate attendance to 65% and like every other student between 65% to 74% of attendance petitioner would have participated in her 6 semester examination; viii) The 6 semester examination were to commence from 15.05.2024 and the petitioner did not receive any formal communication allowing condonation on 09.05.2024 the petitioner had written to Dean Law, enclosing the medical certificate requesting condonation of her absence; ix) On 10.05.2024 and 13.05.2024 mother of the petitioner had further requested the dean law for allowing the petitioner to participate in the 6" sem exams; x) The University did not publish any debarment list nor was any communication made to the petitioner regarding 4 rejection of her prayer and on and from 15.05.2024 examination of 6th Semester commenced and petitioner was not allowed to participate therein; xi) The University had all along been liberal and never insisted upon strict compliance with the minimum prescribed attendance, no word of caution, no extra classes, no declaration of the total number of classes during the present semester, unless the total number of classes are declared, a students cannot ascertain his actual status of attendance before the end semester; xii) Paragraph 9 pg 12 of the affidavit in opposition (6ª line of para 9 of AO) the University percentage of attendance of 11 out of 24 students are although less than the required 65% (after condonation of their period of absence) but more than the percentage of attendance of the petitioner goes to show that others were allowed condonation but in petitioner's case the same was not allowed on the pretext of below 65%. University Regulations :- 1. Clause 3.4.2 A student who has between 60% (65% for B.A.-LLB & B.COM-LLB) and 74% attendance in a semester will have to seek approval from the Dean of the concerned faculty/Vice-Chancellor on grounds of illness or involvement in extra-curricular activities approved by the University; a) In case of illness, leave application must reach the office of the Dean of Faculty within three days of the student's absence. A medical certificate is also to be submitted within 15 days of joining. Mere submission of leave application in itself will not ensure condonation; b) In case of extra-curricular activities, a student must obtain prior written confirmation of his/her participation from the concerned authorities: Head of Department/Profs.-in-Charge of University Societies / Sports Officer/Programme Coordinator of Social Work, which will 5 be countersigned by the Dean of the concerned faculty. When calculating the attendance percentage of the students representing the University in extra- curricular activities in Inter-University competitions, due consideration will be given to the days when they so represented the University. Condonation in such cases must be in explicit written form, authorized by the Dean of the concerned faculty; c) For a student, absence from the classes for the aforementioned reasons may be condoned up to 15% (10% for B.A.-LLB & B.COM-LLB) of the total classes delivered However in all such cases, lower limit for condonation will remain as 60% (65% for B.A.-LLB & B.COM-LLB). A student who is condoned will have to pay a condonation fee within the notified period of time. Clause 3.4.3" A student will be debarred from appearing for the semester examination if i) he/she has less than the required attendance without condonation." Thus the prescription in terms of this clause is first condonation is to be done to arrive at the average attendance if even after condonation if the attendance is below the required percentage the student will be debarred. Clause 3.6.1 A student must have at least 75% aggregate attendance in a semester. Condonation may be granted (refer section 3.4.2) in exceptional cases. Clause 3.6.2 If a student does not fulfil the attendance requirement, as mentioned in Section 3.4.3, he/she will be debarred from appearing for the semester examinations. Thus in terms of 3.4.3 first condonation is to be done to arrive at the aggregate attendance and then if the student doesn't fulfil the required attendance then the student can be debarred. Clause 4.8 Arrear Papers 4.8.1 An arrear paper is one in which a student fails to secure the minimum pass marks. 6 4.8.2 Arrear paper may arise either through failure or absence. This will be indicated in the semester mark sheet. A student will be permitted to appear for an arrear paper in the next appropriate semester. A copy of the relevant rules are annexed herewith marked with letter R1. Submissions of the Petitioner:-6. Consistent stand of the University that the students are well aware of their attendance as the same is available at the student's portal in the form of Student's Attendance view, the foot note of the same reads as "Aggregate Attendance is calculated after the adjustment of classes for sports, events &off campus Placement. in other words it can be said is what is reelected in the attendance view is the attendance after condonation. Thus it is apparent that the Aggregate attendance is arrived at after adjustments/condonation. Sport, events & off campus placement is mentioned in clause 3.4.2" (b)", while clause 3.4.2 "(a)" provides grounds for condonation for illness, the rules of the University doesn't permit any distinction between the two. The University has allowed every student who has secured 65% of aggregate attendance in terms of the Students attendance view, the touchstone was 65% and not 75%. a) University has specifically submitted that the students were aware of their attendance status from the attendance view as the attendance view was live i.e., after adjustment /condonation. Thus all students who had 65% of attendance and allowed actually had below 65% of attendance before adjustment/condonation but condonation was allowed to them this vitiates the stand of the University that below 65% attendance is not condonable. It is submitted that the University had failed in implementation of its own 7 Regulation as no list prior to condonation and after condonation was prepared at the end of the semester before the examination and unless the condonation is done at the end of the semester ie just before the examination the implementation of rule i.e., no condonation below 65% was not possible, University's stand that the condonation was live /spontaneous thus throughout the semester condonation was made whenever the students have applied throughout the semester, thus it can be safely concluded that if someone's aggregate attendance was 65% at the end of the semester as per Attendance view it might well include numerous condoned classes, thus students with below 65% was actually allowed condonation in violation of clause 3.4.2 c) Unless the condonation was done/calculated at the end of the semester it's implementation of clause 3.4.2 c) remains a fallacy; b) Clause 3.4.3 A student will be debarred from appearing for the semester examination if i) he/she has less than the required attendance without condonation. Thus the prescription in terms of this clause is first condonation is to be done to arrive at the aggregate attendance, if even after condonation if the attendance is below the required percentage the student will be debarred; c) For all students who had secured attendance between 65 to 74% attendance the University is not insisting for adherence to clause 3.4.2 i.e., leave application & medical certificate must reach the office of the dean of faculty within and 15 days respectively. However in case of the petitioner the condonation is not allowed allegedly on the pretest of the non submission of medical certificate within time specified in 3.4.2 and the same amounts to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution; d) The stand of the 8 University that below 65% the attendance is not condonable is not contrary to record in case of Bhavini Sinha a 6th semester student with 55.76% attendance the reasoned order dated 14/09/2024 reveals that 15 classes were condoned for participation in XUCUS, this is a glaring example that students below 65% were allowed condonation, the said reasoned order was passed by the Vice Chancellor in terms of the report submitted by a 3 member committee. A copy of the reasoned order is marked as R2. The total number of classes delivered in petitioner's case was 287 adding the total attended classes is 173 average attendance should be 60.27% however the attendance view reflects 61.57% thus 3.7classes have been added to arrive at the aggregate attendance though the University in the affidavit in opposition had contended that she was not entitled to condonation as the leave application was not submitted within the prescribed time, it is not the stand of the University in the opposition that such condonation was granted for participation in extra curricular activities, neither had Himadri Poddar claimed her participation in any extra curricular activities far less condonation on such ground, the reason of condonation of 3,7 classes remains unexplained and illusive Thus there is no sanctity to the procedure of arriving at the aggregate attendance. Thus there is no sanctity to the procedure of arriving at the aggregate attendance; e) Everyone between 65 to 74% attendance is allowed with a mere payment of condonation fees without even a medical certificate; f) The University cannot act arbitrarily and make a discrimination in adherence to clause 3.4.2 a) in case of students below 65% and not insisting on the same in students who had secured attendance 9 between 65 to 74% attendance; g) Regulation 3.4.2.c) For a student, absence from the classes for the aforementioned reasons may be condoned up to 15% (10% for B.A.-LLB & B.COM-LLB) of the total classes delivered, it is submitted that students cannot evaluate the status of their attendance as the total number classes to be delivered were never disclosed by the University before the examination. In the present case the attendance view shows that the petitioner had attended 174 classes out of 287 (total delivered classes). a) As petitioner's brother suffers a terminal disease he need attention 24x7 and as the parents were away she had missed about 28 classes in a fragmented manner (2) page 6 of AO, it is submitted that there is no denial of petitioner's claim however in a most mechanical manner the University has stated that brother's illness is not a ground in terms of their regulation; b) Advised 2 weeks of home rest by the treating doctor on and from 12.02.24 to 23.02.2024 (pg29 of writ); c) The University in its affidavit in opposition had admitted she had missed 14 classes during said period ie 2nd and 3rd week of February 2024, as per the University none of the missed classes during this period were condoned as the medical certificate was not submitted within the timeframe ie in terms Clause 3.4.2 a); d) Though a prayer for condonation was made to the university on 09/05/2024, 10/05/2024 and on 13/05/2024 the same was not considered. Total number of classes attended as per attendance view is 173 and the aggregate attendance is 61.57, total classes delivered were 287. 65% of total delivered classes is 186.5 thus condoning 13.5 classes (173 +13.5 = 186.5) would have made her aggregate attendance to 65% and like every other student between 10 65 to 74% of attendance petitioner would have participated in her 6 semester examination. Admittedly 14 classes were missed during the period when the treating doctor advised home rest for 2 weeks, further the absence of 28 classes missed for brother's illness (para 4 of WP), in para 15 of opposition the University has dealt with such allegation, there is no denial to the number of classes missed, however before denial did not even consider is terminal illness of petitioner's brother would come within the ambit of exceptional cases in terms of clause 3.6.1. Also one of papers was not marked properly inspite of attending 15 out of 24 classes due to mistake on the part of University it was marked as 4 thus 11 classes should be added to the total attendance, University has dealt with such allegation in para 17 pg 15 of opposition by mere denying the allegation, no attempt is made to discover the correctness of petitioner's contention from the erstwhile Dean Law, as the Dean of Law was changed after filing of the writ petition. The stand of the University that attendance below 65% is not condonable is misconceived as in terms of 3.4.3 first condonation is to be done to arrive at the aggregate attendance and if after condonation the aggregate attendance is less than 65% the same is not condonable. Clause 3.6.1 "A student must have at least 75% of aggregate attendance in a semester. Condonation may be granted (refer to Section 3.2.1) in exceptional cases. It is unfortunate that the University did not even consider the prayer for condonation. It was obligatory for the University to consider if the case of the petitioner falls under exceptional cases in terms of clause 3.6.1. A conjoint reading of clause 3.4.2 c), clause 3.4.3 and clause 3.6.1 and morefully the conduct of 11 University in condoning attendance of other students including Bhavini Sinha and Himadri Poddar (as described hereinabove written in clause 7.d) would show that it was permissible to condone the absence of the petitioner and the University had condoned classes even below 65%. The petitioner had duly attended the classes of semester 7,8 and 9 has secured the required attendance also duly participated in the 7,8 and 9 semester examination, however the University has not regularized the admission to 7,8 and 9 semester neither evaluated the answer scripts of 7,8th and 9 semester. The University has never adhered to the its regulation regarding the required attendance (clause 3.4.2) on previous semester/semesters. Judgements relied upon by the petitioner :- a) Sri Bamang Nabam vs North Eastern Hill University, wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench of High Court at Meghalaya has held that "rule could cover a situation where in normal circumstances a student is absent and his attendance falls below 70% But this rule certainly does not cover extraordinary circumstances like illness or bereavement in a student's family, natural disaster, riot strike, political upheavals other act of God and so on which prevents a student or students from attending classes. In such case, this rule would not apply. The Administrators of the college are to consider each case on its own merit." A copy of said Judgement is annexed herewith marked with letter Annexure R4. b) WPA 14385 of 2024 Aditya Chatterjee Vs St Xavier's University and others wherein the student had 63.22% attendance and the Hon'ble Single Judge was pleased to allow the writ petition. The University might submit that they have preferred an appeal against order dt 20.05.2024, fact remains inspite of no stay order rather no 12 interference as on date the University has evaluated the answer script of the subsequent semesters of the said students and the petitioner herein is discriminated. A copy of said Judgement is annexed herewith marked with letter Annexure R5. Direction for production of Records by the University in the instant proceedings:- The petitioner in the instant writ petition had alleged nepotism, on 11.07.2024 in WPA 17553 of 2024 Himadri Poddar the Hon'ble Court was pleased to observe One needs to know whether such condonation as claimed had actually been done in favour of anyone and if so, what was the basis for the same. The University needs to produce the records to show whether they have condoned such shortage in attendance in other cases. Let the University file an opposition within four weeks from this date. Reply, if any, be filed within two weeks therefrom. List this matter for hearing after six weeks. On the next date, the University shall produce the records of students' attendance view for the last semester in respect of all its students of LLB." On 03.01.2025, 14.01.2025 and 20.01.2025 the court has insisted on production of records in terms of previous direction dated 11.07.2024. On 28.01.2026 the Hon'ble Court was further pleased to direct production of records regarding condonation of absence from classes for whatever reasons in relation to the petitioner's sixth semester for the year 2023-2024. On 13.02.2026, further direction for production of records regarding condonation of absence of all students from classes for the course and batch for whatever reasons. On 20.02.2026 the University failed to provide record in relation to all students to whom condonation was granted on medical grounds, allegedly 18 students were granted condonation on 13 medical ground but records of only 5 students could not be traced out. The record of condonation granted on participation in extra curricular activities does not confirm to compliance of clause 3.4.2 b), no written confirmation from the head/prof in charge/sports officer/ programme coordinator could be placed before the Court, no explicit written form authorized by the Dean of faculty could be placed before the Court. Petitioner prays for :- a) Treating the examination of semester 6 as Arrear papers and in terms of clause 4.8. and 4.8.2 participation in the all the papers of 6th semester as Arrear papers of semester 6 at the next appropriate semester and take the 6th semester examination at the end of the course i.e., after 10 semester if required the petitioner can undergo remedial classes; b) Evaluate the answer scripts of 7th 8th and 9th semesters and declare the results wherein the petitioner has duly participated; 3. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted and has relied on the written notes as follows. Before adverting to the facts of the case and the written notes of arguments and submissions of the petitioner the respondents humbly point - i. The Rules and Regulations of the Respondent University (hereinafter referred to as the University Regulations which are statutory in nature and in fact has been so held in recent judgment of St. Xaviers University Kolkata and Ors. vs. Yash Shroff, being MAT No. 1324 of 2024 [Cal. HC]) have not been challenged in the Writ Petition; ii. Whether a case should be considered sufficient for the purpose of condonation is a question of fact and it has been repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the error of fact however grave cannot be 14 entertained in a Writ Jurisdiction (reference: AIR 1964 SC, Pg 477, 5 judges Bench); iii. If the view taken by the authority is a possible view of the matter then this Hon'ble High Court cannot substitute the said view with its own; iv. The petitioner having knowledge that a minimum percentage is to be maintained for appearing in the examination and twenty-five percent (25%) of the absence standing already condoned by virtue of the rules one cannot act in contravention of the said Rules and more so when undertaking was given by the petitioner and her guardian with regard to maintenance of the percentage; v. If any lenient view is taken of the rule, that will destroy the basic purpose of the introduction of the five-year law course as without attending the classes as prescribed one cannot get adequate knowledge of the subject so as to be able to render the services to the clients and society at large; vi. The entire writ petition is based on the allegation that the University has been lenient in respect of many students, but Article 14 has no negative application and the Court cannot direct the authority to act contrary to law; vii. That an Article 226 Writ Petition cannot be filed to do a roving and fishing enquiry against the Respondents. A Petition can succeed only if a Petition makes out a case and not to give a chance to establish the claim. [A Hamsaveni v State of TN (1994) 6 SCC 98 ]. It is not for the High Court to, at the instance of unsuccessful candidates, place itself into a position of fact finding commission and to commence a roving enquiry. [Sadananda Halo v Momtaz Ali Sheikh (2008) 4 SCC 619]; The Respondents are presenting these Written Notes of Arguments to present before the Hon'ble Court the true facts to show that the Petitioner has no ground for sitting for the sixth 15 semester examination. Granting relief to the Petitioner would amount to a grave injustice for the Respondents as it would create a Precedent for students to break the rules of attendance, which the University Grants Commission mandates. It would make the University, which is considered one of India's most premier universities, impossible to function. It would also amount to a grave injustice for other students of the University who have diligently followed the rules and attended classes. It will also be a grave injustice to those students who did not have the required attendance and had to repeat the Semester following the relevant rules. As per the said University Regulations a law student must have 75% of the attendance to be eligible to be promoted to the next Semester. However, the Petitioner's attendance in the 6th Semester was 61.57% only as a result of which she was debarred from promotion to the 7th semester. As such, on or about 08 July 2024, the student Himadri Poddar filed the instant Writ Petition seeking reliefs as prayed for in the Petition. The petitioner, Himadri Poddar, is a student of B. Com LLB (Hons.). She took her admission in the Academic Year 2021-22, for a course duration of five years spread across ten (10) semesters. At the time of admission, the petitioner and her guardian/parent signed a Declaration Form on August 03, 2021, to maintain a minimum of 75% attendance (in aggregate) in order to be eligible to appear in the semester examinations as per Regulation 3.4.1 of the University Regulations as framed by the Executive Council of the University pursuant to the powers contained in Section 31(XVI) of the St. Xavier's University, Kolkata Act, 2016. The said Regulations in Regulation 3.4 deals with Student's Attendance and 16 Regulation 3.4.1, 3.4.2 and 3.4.3 of the said Regulations are quoted as under: “3.4.1 - A student must maintain a minimum of 75% aggregate attendance in a semester. 3.4.2 - A student who has between 60% (65% for B.A.-LLB & B.COM-LLB) and 74% attendance in a semester will have to seek approval from the Dean of the concerned faculty/Vice-Chancellor on grounds of illness or involvement in extra-curricular activities approved by the University. a) In case of illness, leave application must reach the office of the Dean of Faculty within three days of the student's absence. A medical certificate is also to be submitted within 15 days of joining. Mere submission of leave application in itself will not ensure condonation; b) In case of extra- curricular activities, a student must obtain prior written confirmation of her/her participation from the concerned authorities: Head of Department/Profs.-in-Charge University Societies/Sports Officer/Programme coordinator of Social Work, which will be countersigned by the Dean of the concerned faculty. When calculating the attendance percentage of the students representing the University in extra-curricular activities in Inter- University competitions, due consideration will be given to the days when they so represented the University. Condonation in such cases must be in explicit written form, authorized by the Dean of the concerned faculty; c) For a student, absence from the classes for the aforementioned reasons may be condoned up to 15% (10% for B.A.-LLB & B.COM-LLB) of the total classes delivered. However, in all such cases, lower limit for condonation will remain as 60% (65% for B.A.-LLB & B.COM-LLB). A student who is condoned will have to pay a condonation fee within the notified period of time. 3.4.3 - A 17 student will be debarred from appearing for the Semester Examination if (i) he/she has less than the required attendance without condonation; (ii) if the student has not paid the semester fees by the notified last date. A student so debarred will not be eligible for promotion to the next semester. Such student will be required to repeat the Semester in the next academic session. If, in the meantime, there has been a change in the syllabus, the student will have to appear for the CIA and the Semester Examinations in the revised syllabus." The Respondents state that after admission, the petitioner was given a link through email dated August 20, 2021 so as to enable the petitioner to register himself on the University Student Portal 'www.sxuk.edu.in' and upon such registration, the petitioner had access to all academic information including his attendance from the Student Portal. The petitioner was scheduled to appear in the 6th Semester which was to commence on and from 15.05.2024. On 04.04.2024, St. Xavier's University, Kolkata, the respondent no. 1 (hereinafter referred to as "the University"), vide a notification announced the date of the 6th semester examination for the B. Com LLB (Hons.) (H) course, which was to commence from 15.05.2024, in the website of the University. Such notification was also displayed on the digital notice boards which are present in the ground floor of all the academic buildings in the University campus and accessible to all the students. By the same notification dated 04.04.2024, the students were informed that they can download their Admit Cards from the University website (www.sxuk.edu.in) through student's login portal on and from May 9, 2024 (Thursday) from 4.00PM onwards. 81 students in different disciplines 18 in different semesters were debarred for participating in the Intermediate Even Semester Examination of 2023-24 for a shortage in attendance. Out of the 81 there are 24 students who had to appear in LLB 5-year integrated course semester examination. The percentage of attendance of 11 out of the said 24 candidates are although less than the required 65% (after condonation of their period of absence), but is more than the percentage of attendance of the petitioner. As per the records of the University, the percentage of attendance of the writ petitioner in the 6th semester was 61.57% which is well below 75% being the minimum percentage of attendance required for being eligible to sit for the 7th semester examination. In fact, the writ petitioner's percentage of 61.57% was even below 65% being the minimum percentage required for the writ petitioner to become eligible to be entitled to have her period of absence, if any, on the ground of illness or for participating in extra-curricular activities for the University, condoned by the University in accordance with the provisions of Regulations 3.4.2(a), 3.4.2(b) and 3.4.2(c) of the Regulations of the University. On 07.05.2024, the writ petitioner vide a letter intimated the Dean of Xavier Law School, the respondent no. 5 that she was facing a shortfall of attendance for this semester i.e., 6th semester and that her present. attendance was 62%. The petitioner apologized for "the situation arising out of my behalf and in addition to which request for a grant on my application". She further stated that her shortfall in attendance has arisen out of family crisis which the petitioner was facing regarding the illness of the petitioner's sibling who was suffering from duchenne muscular dystrophy. The petitioner's family 19 travelled for medical reason quite often during the year because of which it had been difficult for the petitioner to attend classes. The petitioner requested the Dean to condone her period of absence. The said letter does not mention the period for which the petitioner was praying for her condonation of absence. On 10.05.2024, the petitioner's father sent an email stating that apart from the illness of the petitioner's sibling, the petitioner herself suffers from depression due to numerous factors. Along with the said mail, the petitioner's father attached three purported medical certificates dated 10.02.2024, 15.02.2024 and 17.02.2024. From the said certificates, it would appear that she suffered from stress-related ailments in February 2024, for which she was treated by conducting a psychological assessment and was given medicines. It is an undisputed fact that the said letter dated 07.05.2024 written by the petitioner (where by the petitioner prayed for condonation of the petitioner's absence on the ground of her brother's illness) and the said email dated 10.05.2024 sent by her father (along with the medical certificates attached thereto were the petitioner's father prayed of the petitioner's absence on the ground of her illness) were sent by the petitioner and her father respectively and received by the university as late as on 07.05.2024 and 10.05.2024 respectively. In fact, the email dated 10.05.2024 was received after 09.05.2024 when the admit cards had already been issued. The petitioner had not filed a leave application in accordance with the mandatory provisions of clause 3.4.2(a) of the university regulations within three days from 10.02.2024, when it was diagnosed that she was suffering from mental stress and was treated with medicines. It is also apparent that 20 the petitioner had also not submitted the said medical certificates within 15 days of her joining classes after her illness, also in accordance with the mandatory provisions clause 3.4.2(a) of the university regulations. The University thereafter rejected her request for condonation of classes for the following reasons: a. As per the university records, the petitioner's attendance was 61.57%. Since the petitioner's attendance percentage was below 65% and therefore not between 65% and 74%, she did not fall within the zone of consideration for condoning her period of absence under the specific provision of clause 3.4.2 of the university regulations; b. The petitioner was not entitled to condonation of her absence on the ground of her sibling's illness as prayed for by the petitioner in her letter dated 07.05.2024 under any of the relevant clauses of the university regulations relating to attendance, namely 3.4, 3.4.1, 3.4.2 and 3.4.3 and the sub- clauses thereunder; c. The petitioner was also not entitled to condonation of her absence on the ground of her illness because she had failed to make any leave application and submit her medical certificates in such manner and within such time as stipulated in the university regulation and in clause 3.4.2(a); d. The petitioner has stated (relying on the Doctor's Certificate annexed in pg 29 of the writ petition) inter alia that during the said period in 2nd and 3rd week of February and particularly from 12.02.2024 to 23.02.2024 the petitioner was allegedly absent and had missed 28 classes. The petitioner has also stated inter alia that she could not attend the said 28 classes because of her brother's illness, for which she had to go to Bombay. The petitioner was in fact not absent on any of the days in the 2nd and 3rd 21 week of February when classes were held and delivered. However, inspite of being present in the University on all the days in 2nd and 3rd week of February she chose not to attend 14 out of 38 classes which were delivered during this period for reasons best known to her and it is evident from the report regarding the petitioner's attendance during the period from 12.02.2024 to 23.02.2024. The instant writ petition was filed on July 08, 2024 when the examination for the 6th semester was already over as is evident from Table-1 given below: i) 17.05.2024 – Drafting, pleading and conveyance, 21.05.2024 – Securities and financial market regulations, 24.05.2024 – E-Commerce and its Application. The writ petition was moved on 11.07.2024 before the Hon'ble Justice Jay Sengupta, when the classes for the 7th Semester of the B.Com LL.B Course had already commenced. The Learned Judge was pleased to pass an interim order. The relevant part of the operative portion is quoted hereunder: “One needs to know whether such condonation as claimed had actually been done in favour of anyone and if so, what was the basis for the same. The University needs to produce the records to show whether they have condoned such shortage in attendance in other cases. Let the University file an opposition within four weeks from this date. Reply, if any, be filed within two weeks therefrom. List this matter for hearing after six weeks. On the next date, the University shall produce the records of students' attendance view for the last semester in respect of all its students of LLB. As an interim measure, the University shall allow the petitioner to take admission in the 7th Semester and attend classes upon an undertaking that she shall clear 6th Semester examinations in due course. 22 However, this interim order shall not create any equity in favour of the petitioner and the admission shall abide by the final decision in the writ petition. Parties shall act on a server copy downloaded from the official website of this Court.” Upon checking the contents of the writ petitions, affidavits, petitioner's written note of arguments and material on record, it is found that certain points have been raised and argued by the petitioner during the course of hearing, which are outside the scope of the averments contained in and the case made out in the writ petition which is not permissible as such the respondents in this note of arguments confining their (respondent's arguments), some of which the petitioner did not press in the arguments. At the outset, before dealing with the petitioner's submissions as contained in the aforesaid written notes, The Respondents would like to state that the Respondent University is a Juristic Person having limited powers as defined under the Statute and being a creature of the Statute, it cannot transgress the barriers of the statutory provisions and have to travel within the circumference thereof. The Respondent University got the autonomous status by virtue of the St. Xavier's University, Kolkata Act, 2016, which was duly notified in the Official Gazette on 16.01.2017 and in pursuance of the powers contained Section 31(XVI) of the said Act, the Executive Council of the University has framed the Rules and Regulations as referred to hereinbefore, which the University is bound to adhere to and cannot exercise any powers de hors the said Regulations as such an act would be regarded as arbitrary and in excess of powers conferred. It is submitted that the Petitioner has claimed that the Petitioner deserves her 23 attendance to be condoned for the following reasons; i. That she had missed classes due to her own mental depression for which she provided certificates dated 10.02.2024, 15.02.2024, and 17.02.2024 via a letter dated 07.05.2024 and email dated 10.05.2024; ii. That she had missed classes due to her sibling's illness for which she deserved condonation of attendance; iii. That the Respondents made an error in marking her attendance for the Transfer of Property Paper; iv. That the Respondents allowed others with less than 65% attendance to sit for the examinations and move on to the next Semester. It is submitted before this Court that the Petitioner's contention that the University should have condoned her classes for the month of February due to her alleged mental depression should be rejected. This is because as per the clause 3.4.2(a) of the University Regulations, she should have submitted her leave application for medical reasons within 3 days of diagnosis of the same on 10.02.2024, 15.02.2024 and 17.02.2024. Further the medical certificates must have been submitted within 15 days of resumption of classes. However the application for leaves in February was filed in the month of May. Clause 3.4.2(a) of the University Regulations is as follows: “In case of illness, leave application must reach the office of Dean of Faculty within three days of the student's absence. A medical is also to be submitted within 15 days of joining. Mere submission of leave application in itself will not ensure condonation.” Since its clear that the rules of the University was not adhered to, the Petitioner was not liable to get her leaves condoned; b. It is further submitted that as per the Rules of the University Regulation 3.4.2, Condonation on Medical grounds can only happen for a student in B.Com 24 LL.B course when the attendance of the student is between 65% and 74%. It is submitted that the Petitioner in this case had an attendance of only 61.57% and therefore not within the zone where her attendance could be condoned; c. Further, the Respondents submit that the Petitioner in her Writ Petition has tried to mislead the court to get relief. It is submitted that the Petitioner claimed in her Petition that she could not attend college from 12.02.2024 to 23.02.2024 in 2nd and 3rd week of February 2024 due to her and her brother's illness for which she had to go to Mumbai. It is submitted that the Petitioner in fact had attended classes in all of these days as exhibited in our Affidavit in Opposition. In the above mentioned days 38 classes were held out of which the Petitioner would come to the University attend a few classes and skip the rest. The Petitioner in fact had attended 24 out of 38 classes on those days in each of the days. If the Petitioner was in Mumbai or unwell she would not have come for a few classes and miss out on the rest of the classes on those days; d. It is submitted that suppression or concealment of material facts is not advocacy but jugglery, manipulation, maneouvring or misrepresentation. Such conduct has no place in equitable writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The court has inherent power to dismiss the petition and refuse to proceed on merits if the Petitioner misleads or suppresses facts [KD Sharma v Steel Authority of India Limited (2008) 12 Supreme Court Cases 481, para 38 & 39]. The Petitioner by trying to mislead the Court by misrepresenting facts should have their Petition be dismissed; e. It is further submitted that 81 students in different disciplines in different semesters were debarred from taking examinations for shortage of 25 attendance in Intermediate Even Semester Examination of 2023-24 for shortage of attendance like the Petitioner. Therefore, the Petitioner cannot claim that she was particularly targeted. The University was following its rules as directed by the UGC regulations, the vires of which have not been challenged. Allowing the Petitioner's prayers would create a complete collapse of the University's academic system. It is submitted that the University Regulations are clear that any ground for condonation of attendance is only for personal illness of a student. There is no provision in the Regulations that allows for condonation of attendance for the illness of relatives of students. If the University allows the same, it is submitted that students would start filing leave applications based on the illness of all their relatives. It is submitted that the Petitioner has made various averments in the Petition that the Respondents had given assurances to the Petitioner regarding her attendance would be taken care of. The Respondents submit that no proof of such assurances has been placed by the Respondents before the Hon'ble Court in the Petition or in their affidavits. Therefore, such averments should be rejected by the Hon'ble Court. It is submitted that the Petitioner claimed that the Petitioner was supposed to get 15 out of 24 classes in the "Transfer of Property" classes for which she was given 4 attendance. However the Respondents submit that this was misleading as the University has record that the total classes for this course were 55 out which the Petitioner attended only 19 classes and was duly awarded attendance for the same. The attendance record for the same was submitted in the Affidavit in Opposition of the Respondents as Annexure R/12. The allegation that the University has 26 allowed those with less than 65% attendance in the past to sit for the University exam is absolutely false. The allegation was made without any proof attached to the Petition and Affidavit in Reply. The intention the Respondents submit was to use an Article 226 Writ Petition to do a roving and fishing enquiry against the Respondents. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the Division Bench of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court and various other High Courts have held that an Article 226 Petition cannot be used to do a roving and fishing enquiry. The Respondents submit the following judgments for consideration before the bench. a. A Petition can succeed only if a Petition makes out a case and not to give a chance to establish the claim. A Hamsaveni v State of TN (1994) 6 SCC 98]; b. It is not for the High Court to, at the instance of unsuccessful candidates, place itself into a position of fact finding commission and to commence a roving enquiry. | Sadananda Halo v Momtaz Ali Sheikh (2008) 4 SCC 619]; c. A writ is issued in favour of a person who has some right and not for the sake of roving enquiry having scope for maneouvring; further held that where neither steps to enforce claims are taken except sending vague representations nor any material produced before the Court, it would be too dangerous to accept a plea, as here, to call upon the respondents to produce their records. [ Ratan Chandra Sammanta v UOI 1993 Supp (4) SCC 67 ]; d. A Court is not expected to indulge in roving enquiry to rule out all possible explanations and alternative scenarios justifying such irregularities. [West Bengal Board of Primary Education and Anr v Priyanka Naskar and Ors. 2025 SCC OnLine 9448); e. Allegations of Mala Fide are serious in nature and they essentially raise a 27 question of fact. It is, therefore, necessary for the person making such allegations to supply full particulars in the petition. If sufficient averments and requisite materials are not on record, the court would not make "fishing" or roving enquiry. Mere assertion, vague averment or bald statement is not enough to hold the action to be mala fide. It must be demonstrated by facts. Moreover, the burden of proving mala fide is on the person levelling such allegations and the burden is “very heavy”. [Dhampur Sugar v State of Uttarakhand (2007) 8 SCC 448 ]; f. The defendants' request really amounted to the Court's collecting documentary evidence which the defendants considered to be in their favour at that point of time. It is no business of the Court to to collect evidence for a party or even to protect the rival party from the evil consequences of making forged entries in those account books. [Padam Sen and Anr v State of Uttar Pradesh 1960 SCC OnLine SC 77]; g. The court cannot be used as a tool to create evidence [Tejo Ratna Kongara v National Housing Bank and Ors.]. Therefore, the Petitioners' contention that the Respondents were allowing students with less than 65% attendance to sit for examinations is to be dismissed as they have not provided any evidence in their Petitions or in their subsequent affidavits. The Petitioners' sole objective in making such false and baseless allegations was to try to use the Court to enter into a roving and fishing enquiry in a bid to create evidence and prolong the matter as long as possible. The Respondents further submit that pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble High Court dated 13.02.2026 the Petitioners submitted documents available in the office of the Dean, Xaviers Law School, relating to condonation and attendance adjustment records of 28 the concerned batches, namely: BALLB (Hons) Semester VI - Even Semester AY 2023-24; B.Com LLB (Hons) Semester VI Even Semester - AY 2023-24; B.Com LLB (Hons) Semester IV Even Semester AY 2023-24. In compliance with the requisition, the following documents were submitted before the court. i. Original letter of condonation prayer/recommendation submitted to the Vice Chancellor in May 2024; ii. Original medical applications/documents submitted by the students, as available in the records of the Dean's office; iii. A detailed statement indicating the availability and non availability of original medical documents/applications in respect of the concerned students. It was further submitted before the court that, as reflected in the enclosed statement, certain original medical documents/applications could not be traced in spite of the best possible efforts of 13 students (non petitioners). This was because the current Dean of St. Xavier's Law School took charge on 01.07.2024 and was not handed over the papers from the previous Dean. A perusal of the records submitted by the Respondents will show the Hon'ble Court that the condonation was granted only to students who had more than 65% attendance. No student who had less than 65% attendance were granted condonation of attendance on health grounds. Therefore there was no arbitrariness or prejudice in the decisions taken by the Respondents. The Respondents submit that the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court had dismissed the Petition of a student in IIM Calcutta who had claimed relaxation of the attendance requirement and passage to the next Semester on sympathetic grounds of health. The Court held that "The Petitioner being awarded degree in such circumstances, would 29 send a bad message to the student community at large and in such cases, sympathy and compassion should have no role to play, and in the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the institution rather than the student (Shubham Pal and Ors. vs Staff Selection Commission and Anr. (Civil Appeal No(s) of 2026 (arising out of SLP (c) No(s). 21999/2024)) as such indigence will not create difficulties for the institution but also for the students." [Harish v Union of India and Ors WPA 24155 of 2025, para 321. Thus, the petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed with costs. Decisions relied upon by the respondents: a. By virtue of the powers conferred in the parent Act, the Executive Council framed the Rules and Regulations for Under-Graduate Degree Courses containing the exhaustive provisions relating to conducting the examinations, the attendance percentage, the medium, the discipline and so on so forth. The regulation is exhaustive and imbibes within itself the minimum attendance to be adhered by the student in order to qualify in the examination conducted for a particular Semester. Rule 3.4.2 of the said Rules and Regulations are quoted as under: “3.4.2 A student who has between 60% (65% for B.A.-LLB & B.COM-LLB) and 74% attendance in a semester will have to seek approval from the Dean of the concerned faculty/Vice- Chancellor on grounds of illness or involvement in extracurricular activities approved by the University. a) In case of illness, leave application must reach the office of the Deana of Faculty within three days of the student‟s absence. A medical certificate is also to be submitted within 15 days of joining. Mere submission of leave application in itself will not ensure condonation; b) In 30 case of extra-curricular activities, a student must obtain prior written confirmation of his/her participation from the concerned authorities: Head of Department/Profs.-in-Charge of University Societies/Sports Officer/Programme coordinator of Social Work, which will be countersigned by the Dean of the concerned faculty. When calculating the attendance percentage of the students representing the University in extra-curricular activities in Inter-University competitions, due consideration will be given to the days when they so represented the University. Condonation in such cases must be in explicit written form, authorized by the Dean of the concerned faculty; c) For a student, absence from the classes for the aforementioned reasons may be condoned up to up to 15% (10% for B.A.-LLB & B.COM-LLB) of the total classes delivered. However, in all such 4 cases, lower limit for condonation will remain as 60% (65% for B.A.-LLB & B.COM- LLB). A student who is condoned will have to pay a condonation fee within the notified period of time.” It is manifest from the above quoted provision that the minimum percentage of attendance in each Semester shall be 75 percent. However, the students having attendance percentage ranging between 60 to 74 percent may be permitted to seek approval from the Dean of Faculty/Vice Chancellor on the ground enumerated therein and it is no gain saying that the University is conferred with the power to condone or relax the percentage of attendance in a particular Semester below 75 percent with a minimum cap of 60 percent. The authority, therefore, cannot act beyond the statutory provisions and the moment the outer cap for exercise of discretion or the power to relax is fixed, it becomes inflexible and the 31 University cannot exercise the power de hors the same. In the event if it is so, it would be regarded as an arbitrary and in excess of the power so conferred. The Court shall not direct the authority to act in defiance of the law or to act contrary to law. The authority being the creature of the statute cannot transgress the barriers of the statutory provisions and have to travel within the circumference thereof. The said Clause 3.4.2 does not confer upon the appellant, the power to condone the shortfall below 60 percent of the attendance and, therefore, the direction of the Single Bench to condone the same despite the attendance being short of 60 percent is contrary to the aforesaid statutory provisions and, therefore, cannot be sustained. a. St. Xaviers University Kolkata and Ors. vs. Yash Shroff, being MAT No. 1324 of 2024 (Cal. HC), para 2 on page 4; 1. In instances of occasional aberrations, whereby ineligible students are permitted under court orders to undertake university examinations, such orders should not be treated as precedents and unless the High Court can justify its decision on principle and precept, it should better desist from passing such orders, for it puts the “Rule of Law” to a mockery and promotes rather the “Rule of Man”. a. Central Board of Secondary Education vs. Nikhil Gulati and Anr.. reported in (1998) 3 SCC 5, para 1; ii. When an order states that it is not to be treated as a precedent, it should not be followed by the High Courts and the courts below. Also, the Rules laid down cannot be made redundant. a. Maharshi Dayanand University vs. Dr. Anto Joseph and Ors.. reported in (1998) 6 SCC 215, para 7; iii. This five years law course is being sought to be frustrated by permitting this kind of indulgence to the students that they may not attend 65% of the 32 lectures and they may be permitted to appear in examination on grounds like medical and other grounds then the whole purpose of improving the standard of legal education will be frustrated. The relaxation should be granted only in exceptional cases and not in mass scale as has been granted. a. University of Calcutta & Ors, vs. Amit Jalan & Ors., reported in 1999 SCC Online Cal 152, para 12, 13, 16 and 19; iv. The directions to the appellants to disobey the law is subversive of the rule of law, a breeding ground for corruption and feeding source for indiscipline. The High Court, therefore, committed manifest error in law, in exercising its prerogative power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution, directing the appellants to permit the students to appear for the examination etc. a. State of Maharashtra vs. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale and Ors.. reported in (1992) 4 SCC 435, para 12; v. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong decisions made in other cases. The said provision does not envisage negative equality but has only a positive aspect. a. Tarun Kundu and Ors. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., reported in 2000 SCC Online Cal 649, para 7; b. Jyostnamayee Mishra vs. The State of Odisha and Ors., in SLP (C) No. 13984 of 2023, para 31; c. U.P. State Sugar Corpn. Ltd. and Anr. vs. Sant Raj Singh and Ors.. reported in (2006) 9 SCC 82, pрага 26; d. Vice-Chancellor. M.D. University vs. Jahan Singh, reported in (2007) 5 SCC 77, рага 28; vi. It is a trite law that the Court while adopting an interpretative tool in ascertaining the meaning, object and the language of a statutory provision should firstly take endeavour to make the provisions workable rather to render it otiose or 33 redundant. Mere one word or an expression should not be viewed jealously so as to render the entire provisions unworkable. Since the writ petitioner/appellant did not challenge the vires of the said provision on the test of a reasonability, we do not delve to go into the aforesaid aspect as an appellate court, more particularly, in absence of any pleading having made in the writ petition filed before the Trial Court. a. Tanusree Mazumdar vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.. in MAT No. 156 of 2024, рага 10, 12; vii. If a law student does not attend lectures or obtain the requisite percentage of attendance, he cannot think of taking a leap to another year of study. Mercy does not come to her aid as law requires a student to digest her experience and gradually discover her own ignorance and put a progressive step thereafter. a. Chaudhary Ali Zia Kabir vs. GGSIP University & Ors.. reported in 2011 SCC Online Del 1356, рага 13. 14; viii. When there is a conflict between law and equity, it is the law which has to prevail, in accordance with the Latin maxim „dura lex sed lex‟ which means 'the law is hard, but it is the law'. Equity can only supplement the law, but it cannot supplant or override it. a. State of Uttarakhand and Anr. vs. Archana Shukla and Ors.. reported in (2011) 15 SCC 194, para 6; ix. order Ld. Single Judge held to have committed a serious error in making an based on compassionate endowment directing the appellant-corporation 'as a special case' to reappoint an employee whose date of birth was erroneous in the records. a. General Manager (Marketing) Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. and Ors. vs. Subodh Chandra Das and Ors.. reported in (1988) 1 SCC 594, para 2; x. While construing a statute, 'sympathy' has no role to play. Sympathy or 34 sentiment by itself cannot be a ground for passing an order in relation whereto the appellants miserably fail to establish a legal right. It is further trite that despite an extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction contained in Article 142 of the Constitution of India, this Court ordinarily would not pass an order which would be in contravention of a statutory provision. a. State of Bihar and Ors. vs. Amrendra Kumar Mishra, reported in (2006) 12 SCC 561, para 15; b. Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs. Ram Lal and Ors., reported in (2005) 2 SCC 638, para 44; c. Guru Nanak Dev University vs. Parminder Kr. Bansal and Ors.. reported in (1993) 4 SCC 401, рага 7; xi. This court in several cases deprecated the practise of allowing students to appear provisionally in the examinations of the Board or the University and then ultimately regularising the same by taking a sympathetic view of the matter. The Court cannot by its fiat direct the University to disobey the Statute to which it owes its existence and the Regulations made by the University itself as that would be destructive of the rule of law. a. C.B.S.E. and Anr. vs. P. Sunil Kumar and Ors., reported in (1998) 5 SCC 377, para 3; xii. It would not be correct to say that this Court in B.C. Chaturvedi case has accepted the view that the High Courts/Tribunals possess the same power which this Court has under Article 142 of the Constitution for doing complete justice, even in the absence of such a provision. a. Sanchalakshri and Anr. vs. Vijayakumar Raghuvirprasad Mehta and Anr., reported in (1998) 8 SCC 245, para 8; xiii. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court had dismissed the Petition of student in IIM Calcutta who had claimed relaxation of attendance requirement and passage to the next Semester on sympathetic grounds of health. The Court held that 35 "The Petitioner being awarded degree in such circumstances, would send a bad message to the student community at large and in such cases, sympathy and compassion should have no role to play and in the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the institution. rather than the student (Shubham Pal and Ors. vs Staff Selection Commission and Anr. (Civil Appeal No(s)........ of 2026 (arising out of SLP (c) No(s). 21999/2024)) as such indigence will not create difficulties for the institution but also for the students." a. Harish v Union of India and Ors WPA 24155 of 2025. para 32. The petitioner has not relied upon and referred to any judicial decisions in support of her claim. In view of the background facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons as stated herein above, the writ petition is not maintainable in law and in the facts of the case and hence should be dismissed with cost, being wholly misconceived. 4. I heard the learned counsels for the parties, perused the writ petition, the affidavits and the written notes of submissions. 5. First, the respondent University was requested to produce the relevant records, especially as some of the petitioners expressed doubts about proper maintenance of the same. The records were produced in respect of the two courses of LL B and BMS. On 20.02.2026, it was submitted on behalf of the University that out of 18 students who had sought condonation of absence / leave on medical ground, records were available only for 5 students. It was also submitted that as regards the attendance record for programme / events, the documents were themselves forwarded by the Dean, but there was no prior approval given by the Dean to each of the students, separately. 36 However, it appears from the Form itself that there is a clause no 2 which stated that copy of prior approval letter from the Dean of the respective Faculty was to be attached. Although the records were not complete and it was argued on behalf of the University that they do not contain details of all students and that some parts may be missing, it appears that records have been maintained in respect of certain number of students who had prayed for leave and the like. Therefore, there is a substantial compliance regarding maintenance of records by the University. Although there was an allusion made on behalf of some of the students that some other students might have been unduly favoured in this regard, there is no specific allegation leveled and/or example given in this regard nor were such candidates made parties herein. Therefore, it will be futile to go into this aspect. As found earlier, the University has been able to show maintenance of records as regards grant of leave to students. 6. As rightly contended by the respondent University, both the University and the reputed College in Kolkata have maintained high standards in education and have contributed greatly to the society. According to them, discipline is a thing which came in handy in achieving such goals. Perhaps, no one can dispute this. However, no one is infallible. Therefore, if there is an erroneous handling of matters regarding dealing with lack of attendance of students by the University or any of their staff, this Court would be duty bound to look into it if the student‟s rights were prejudiced by the same. 7. Withholding of students from the next semester for lack of attendance cannot be a means to punish students, far less an end by itself. However, 37 there are certain rules in life that all have to adhere to. A curriculum in a study course is prepared carefully by keeping in mind its requirements including as regards attendance of classes. Law has traditionally been a mature subject studied after an under graduate course. But, now it is taught even after Class 12 as an integrated 5 years course. Thus, the requirement of attending classes in order to have a proper feel of the subject from an early stage is perhaps more pronounced now than ever before. Just as we expect doctors coming out of medical institutes to be of a particular standard, we cannot expect any less of lawyers. This is what our society requires. Incidentally, unlike certain other professions, the avocation of an Advocate is not covered by the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. So, there is a greater need to train our would-be legal professionals well and as per the curriculum formulated. In University of Calcutta & Ors. vs Amit Jalan (supra), a Division of this Court had been very categorical in holding legal education as a thing to be taken seriously and if a student is supposed to attend certain minimum number of classes, then the same has to be scrupulously followed. A similar view had been taken by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in a catena of decisions as regards maintenance of such discipline in an educational course. 8. In this regard, it would not be out of context to say that we who have been able to complete our education to some extent and the students who are in the process of completing their education are a privileged lot. In our country, there are several persons who do not get the opportunity to start, far less complete their education. Due to financial strain or otherwise, 38 students drop out even from schools. To them, College education is a distant dream. Moreover, the students of Colleges and Universities are young, but adults. They are not juveniles. They should be aware of their rights and responsibilities as well. One wonders whether if a young man of the same age as a student of the College who works in a farm or in a factory infringes the rules of engagement in an organization, he would be spared the consequences only because of his or her age. Therefore, a student cannot claim a similar advantage, as of right, for non-adherence to the rules of engagement in a College. 9. That apart, it is the case of the University that not only were the students made aware of the strict rules regarding attendance. In some cases, either the students or their parents had to sign undertakings that they would be abiding by such conditions. 10. The other impediment in showing undue leniency as regards attendance of classes is the supposed wrong that would be perpetrated on the numerous others who had, despite all odds, scrupulously attended the classes as required. They might then very well object claiming that they could have honed their skills in some sports or tried their luck in some other avocation if they had known that absence from classes would be condoned anyway. 11. However, all these do not mean that if there is an overall violation of natural justice or if the University had contributed to or had acquiesced to the leave or absence of a candidate or that the student had been able to 39 prima facie show that he or she had good grounds to claim exemption, the candidate would not be able to get necessary benefit. 12. A question of law has been raised by the petitioners that the rules framed by the University regarding attendance were defective. According to them, the students need to attend minimum number of classes. Certain absence would be excused upon strict compliance of the provisions. However, according to this petitioner, there have been occasions where the rules were not scrupulously followed. More importantly, the calculation was to be done by deducting the excusable absence from the total number of days attended. But, in some cases, like in the case of one Bhavini Sinha, the same was not done. There even before the total calculation could be done, certain days were excused. In fact, as per the petitioners, permissions required were not given in time and it was assured verbally that such strict compliance would not be required. 13. For the sake of clarity, the relevant provisions of the rules as framed by the University regarding attendance may be set out as under: “3.4 Student' Attendance 3.4.1 A student must maintain a minimum of 75% aggregate attendance in a semester. 3.4.2 A student who has between 60% (65% for B.A.-LLB & B.COM-LLB) and 74% attendance in a semester will have to seek approval from the Dear of the concerned faculty/Vice-Chancellor on grounds of illness or involvement in extra-curricular activities approved by the University. a) In case of illness, leave application must reach the office of the Dean of Faculty within three days of the student's absence. A medical certificate is also to be 40 submitted within 15 days of joining. Mere submission of leave application in itself will not ensure condonation. b) In case of extra-curricular activities, a student must obtain prior written confirmation of his / her participation from the concerned authorities: Head of Department / Profs.-in-Charge of University Societies / Sports Officer/ Programme Coordinator of Social Work, which will be countersigned by the Dean of the concerned faculty. When calculating the attendance percentage of the students representing the University in extra-curricular activities in Inter-University competitions, due consideration will be given to the days when they so represented the University. Condonation in such cases must be in explicit written form, authorized by the Dean of the concerned faculty. c) For a student, absence from the classes for the aforementioned reasons may be condoned up to 15% (10% for B.A.-LLB & B.COM-LLB) of the total classes delivered. However, in all such cases, lower limit for condonation will remain as 60% (65% for B.A.-LLB & B.COM-LLB).” 14. It is true that in the case of one Bhavini Sinha, it appeared from the reasoned order passed by the Vice Chancellor that certain days were exempted from the total number of attendance although the total attendance was below 65%. This was indeed a one off case and the matter was being taken up for decision by the Vice Chancellor pursuant to a direction passed by this Court. Any action taken therein and the manner of calculation adopted therein, thus, cannot be used against the University. 15. Otherwise, it does not appear that the rules framed by the University in this regard were inherently defective. However, the University is requested to scrupulously follow what they laid down regarding grant of permission to students for engaging in extra-curricular activities and the like. They should 41 also maintain their records better and in a complete manner and preserve the records for a term not less than 7 years. 16. Now, let us come to the particular facts of the present case. The petitioner‟s main grievance with the University is that the petitioner‟s lower attendance was attributed to her brother‟s deteriorating condition due to Duchenne muscular dystrophy, requiring her to provide constant care and accompany him for treatment in Bombay, resulting in approximately 28 missed classes and psychiatric illness and suicidal ideation due to such care. She also suffered from throat infection and fever in February 2024 and was advised two weeks‟ rest, causing a further absence of about 20 classes. There was also an erroneous recording of attendance in the subject Transfer of Property, wherein 11 classes attended by her were wrongly recorded as absent. The petitioner is aggrieved with the debarment from appearing in the Sixth Semester examination; the refusal to condone the petitioner‟s shortage of attendance despite her illness and the serious medical condition of her brother; the alleged arbitrary and discriminatory application of the University‟s attendance and condonation Regulations; the purported failure to consider the petitioner's representation seeking condonation; the alleged failure to correct the alleged discrepancy in attendance in the paper Transfer of Property; and the purported failure to regularise and evaluate the answer scripts of the seventh, eighth and ninth semesters. 17. According to the University, the petitioner‟s attendance was 61.57%, below the 65% threshold prescribed for consideration of condonation. The University stated that the petitioner was not entitled to medical condonation 42 as the required leave application and medical certificate were not submitted within the prescribed time under Regulation 3.4.2(a). The University further stated that her brother‟s illness was not a permissible ground for condonation under the Regulations and that the petitioner‟s claim of exceptional circumstances under Regulation 3.6.1 was not acceptable. The alleged discrepancy in attendance in Transfer of Property was also disputed by the University. The University relied on its attendance records and did not accept the petitioner‟s claim of an additional 11 classes. 18. The respondent University further stated as follows. The petitioner in paragraphs 6 and 13 of the writ petition stated (relying on the Doctor‟s certificate annexed in page 29 of the writ petition), inter alia, that during the said period in the 2nd and 3rd week of February, and particularly from 12.02.2024 to 23.02.2024 the petitioner was allegedly absent and had missed 28 classes. The petitioner also stated, inter alia, that she could not attend the said 28 classes because of her brother‟s illness, for which she had to go to Bombay. The petitioner was in fact not absent on any of the days in the 2nd and 3rd week of February when classes were held and delivered. However, inspite of being present in the University on all the days in 2nd and 3rd week of February, she chose not to attend 14 out of 38 classes which were delivered during this period for reasons best known to her and it is evident from the report regarding the petitioner‟s attendance during the period from 12.02.2024 to 23.02.2024. 19. It is true that a practical distinction is required to be made in respect of extra-curricular activities and illness. Perhaps, there is more force in the 43 University‟s stipulation in Clause 3.4.2 b) that in case of extra-curricular activities, a student must obtain prior written confirmation of his / her participation from the concerned authorities, than in Clause 3.4.2 a) that in case of illness, leave application must reach the office of the Dean of Faculty within three days of the student's absence and a medical certificate was also to be submitted within 15 days of joining. The reason is quite elementary. While the issue of prior permission to be given in case of extra-curricular activity by an instrumentality of the University itself may be subjected to greater scrutiny and distrust by an affected party, thereby requiring stricter compliance, the existence of a medical certificate issued by an independent medical professional / concern would be more sacrosanct in the present facts unless it is found patently erroneous or irreconcilable. Hence, a delay on the part of a student afflicted by illness in either making a leave application or providing a medical certificate beyond time cannot be treated as fatal. The furnishing of the medical certificate itself should be sufficient compliance of the requirement stipulated. Incidentally, the records do not show recording of prior according of sanction in case of leave for extra- curricular activities. But, this also has been accepted as sufficient compliance of the Rules by the University in view of their contention that in cases where such permission was granted, the papers were forwarded for necessary action. 20. However, the attending of some classes and not attending certain other classes for the time period for which the student allegedly claimed to have been absent and/or gone elsewhere for her brother‟s treatment, as 44 discussed in paragraph 18 above, appears to be grossly inappropriate. This does not inspire confidence in this Court to intervene in this matter, at least on such score. In any event, it would indeed be very difficult for an educational institution to allow illness of siblings and other relatives as ground for exemption from attendance. It would be too far-fetched. Of course, serious illness of a student herself ought to be considered for exemption. 21. Some other of the petitioner‟s ails including purported psychological issue also relate to her brother‟s illness. However, two weeks‟ absence for throat infection, even if accepted at the face value, perhaps cannot be treated as so exceptional a ground as to bring the petitioner into the zone of consideration for grant of exemption. 22. The petitioner has also not been able to prove that she was wrongly marked absent for some the classes in the subject Transfer of Property. 23. The University records show her attendance to be 61.57% while the required minimum attendance is 75%. Even for consideration of such condonation, the minimum attendance had to be 65%. 24. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to allow the petitioner‟s application. However, in view of the fact that during the pendency of the application, without prejudice and without creating any equity in favour of the petitioner, she had been allowed to sit in examinations and move to the subsequent semester / s, the present application is disposed of with the following directions - 45 (i) The petitioner shall again attend the classes for the semester for which she had inadequate attendance and fulfil the attendance requirement; (ii) Immediately thereafter, all her examination results for the said and / or the following semesters, which had been kept unpublished, shall be published; (iii) For such purpose, if the examination papers have not been evaluated till now, shall be kept evaluated in the mean time; (iv) No stigma shall be attached or further prejudice shall be caused to the student for having to participate in the said semester classes afresh; (v) At the completion of the course as contemplated above, the petitioner shall receive all certificate / s, mark sheets /s and other relevant documents, if any, without further delay. 25. Urgent certified copy of the order shall be provided to the parties upon compliance of usual formalities. (Jay Sengupta, J.)