IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon’ble Justice Jay Sengupta WPA 24912 of 2024 Bhavini Sinha 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 Jay Sengupta, J: 2 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 6 semester B.A LLB Hons course from the St. Xavier's University; ii) The petitioner had approached this Hon'ble Court on a previous occasion by filing a writ petition being WPA No 18899 of 2024 alleging failure of the University in condonation of her absence due (a) Illness and (b) Participation in Xuvkala as a Core member. By solemn order dated August 9, 2024 the writ petition was disposed of directing inter alia "this writ petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to make a comprehensive representation before the Vice-Chancellor of the University, who shall consider the same expeditiously and in accordance with law and keeping in mind the decision of this Court in WPA 18202 of 2004. A copy of the said order passed in WPA 18899 of 2024 is annexed to the writ petition. In terms of the solemn order passed by this Hon'ble Court a detailed representation was made to the University on 16.08.2024 specifically pleading that (a) Illness and (b) Participation in cultural events as a Core committee member of Xavier's University Cultural & Arts Society necessary 3 documents including medical certificate by the treating doctor were also annexed to the representation; iv) On 14.09.2024 a purported order was passed by the University, the reasoned is self contradictory in paragraph 5 of the said reasoned order it is mentioned that since the attendance was 55.76% which was below the minimum attendance of 65% to be eligible for condonation on the grounds of illness and or involvement in extra-curricular activities however in the same breath in paragraph 5.1 the University claims to have adjusted 15 classes for participation in XUCUS as P.R head. The word “Adjustment” does not find place in the Rules of the University and is indeed adjustment or compromise with the rules by the University at its whims and fancies, by whatever name called the same results in condonation as it is adding 15 classes to arrive at the aggregate attendance, on one hand the university is not considering condonation for illness as the attendance is below 65% on the other hand condonation of 15 classes are done participation in XUCUS as P.R head. 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 reasoned order is not in accordance with law as in spite of specific direction by this Hon'ble Court of considering the petitioner's representation keeping in mind the decision passed in WPA 18202 of 2024 Souparna Dey vs State of West Bengal, in passing the reasoned order dated 14.09.2024 the University did not take into consideration the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in WPA 18202 of 2024. There is no appeal to the solemn order dated 05.08.2024 passed in 4 WPA 18202 of 2024 and the observation and directions passed therein are binding on the parties; v) The petitioner was advised 2 weeks home rest by her treating doctor because of illness on and from 15.01.2024 (medical certificate pg29 of the writ petition) and due to such reason around 35 classes were missed by the petitioner. University in its opposition has admitted that during this period she had missed 27 classes none of the classes were condoned allegedly for not submitting the medical certificate in terms of regulation 3.4.2a; vi) Paragraph 9 pg 11 of the affidavit in opposition the University percentage of attendance of 19 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%; vii) The petitioner was requested by the authorized representative of Xavier's University Cultural and Art Society (XUCUS) to function as the Core member in Xavrang and Xavkala events conducted by Xavier's University Cultural and Art Society (XUCUS) (pg 31of WP, brochure records Bavini Sinha -Core member), for such reason the petitioner had missed around 40 classes over a period of 2 weeks during 2nd week of February, 2024 till 1 week of March, 2024 due to participation in the Xavrang and Xavkala events organized by XUCAS. In terms of regulation 3.4.2 b, the entire missed classes were to be condoned. In opposition (pg 14 para 16 of AO) the University had admitted that the petitioner was appointed P.R Head of XUCUS, however the University had submitted that the missed classes were duly adjusted. In paragraph 17 of 5 opposition the University has averred that during the period of 2 weeks i.e., from 08.02.2024 to 26.02.2024 a total number of 55 classes were delivered by the University out of which petitioner had attended 29 classes and missed 26 classes out of which a total number of 15 classes were condoned for her participation XUCAS. It is but obvious that if the petitioner was participating as P.R. Head of XUCUS with necessary approval from University authority the all the 26 classes missed during such period ought to be condoned but instead only 15 were. The University in its affidavit in opposition (pg. 15 Para 17) and in the reasoned order annexed in the writ petition (Pg. 56 Para 5.1) had admitted that the petitioner attended 29 classes out of 55 classes during the Xavkala event and out of which 15 classes were condoned and adjusted leaving balance 11 classes where she was marked absent. If 15 classes can be condoned and adjusted then 11 remaining classes missed during such period ought to be condoned and adjusted when the aggregate percentage of attendance is below 65%; viii) It is a fact that the classes missed by the petitioner during January due to illness were not at all considered by the University, University in its opposition has admitted that during this period she had missed 27 classes (para 15 pg 13 of AO) none of the classes were condoned allegedly for not submitting the medical certificate in terms of regulation 3.4.2a. if such absent classes for illness (27 classes) and (11 classes) (as demonstrated in para vii herein above) were condoned by the university the percentage of attendance would have reached above 65% and like all students petitioner could have participated in the 6º semester examination; ix) The University 6 did not publish any debarment list nor was any communication made to the petitioner regarding rejection of her prayer and on and from 15.05.2024 examination of 6 Semester commenced and petitioner was not allowed to participate therein; x) The last date of admission to semester 7 was 15.07.2024 as the petitioner's father was hospitalized for "Acute febrile illness left sided pneumonitis." On 22.07.2024 petitioner had made a detailed representation to the University authorities to allow her admission to 7th semester (pg 42/43/44 of wp), the previous round of writ petition WPA No 18899 of 2024 was filed and the same was disposed of on 09.08.2024. In terms of the solemn order petitioner had made a comprehensive representation on 16.08.2024 but the University delayed in passing the reasoned order till 14.09.2024 which resulted in missing of classes in the 7th semester as well. 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 7 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."; 2. 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; 3. 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; 4. 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. 5. Clause 4.8 Arrear Papers - 4.8.1 An arrear paper is one in which a student fails to 8 secure the minimum pass marks. 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 is annexed herewith marked with letter R1. 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. ". Thus, it is apparent that the Aggregate attendance is arrived at after adjustments/condonation. 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 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 i.e., just before the examination the implementation of rule i.e., no condonation below 65% was not possible, University's stand that the 9 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 3 and 15 days respectively. However in case of the petitioner the condonation is not allowed allegedly on the pretext 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 attendance view of petitioner (pg 28 of wp) demonstrates that total number of classes delivered(D) were 284 and the Attended classes (A) is added comes to 150, the aggregate would (150/284 x 100 = )52.81 for reasons unknown the Aggregate Attendance according to attendance view is 55.76%, 55.76% of 10 284 comes to 158.3 thus there is difference 8.3 classes The alleged adjustment of 15 classes are yet again not explainable, rules does not provide for adjustment and provides for condonation and if condonation below 65% was permissible for participation in extra-curricular activity in terms of clause 3.4.2.b, illness in terms of clause 3.4.2a could not have been denied on the pretext of below 65%. The rules do not provide for a distinction between clause 3.4.2a and 3.4.2.b, both are grounds for condonation and stand on equal footing. In case of another semester 6 student, Himadri Poddar the attendance view reveals that she has attended 173 out of 287 delivered classes) average attendance should be 60.27% however the attendance view reflects 61.57% thus 3.7 classes have been added to arrive at the aggregate attendance though the University contends that she was not entitled to condonation. A copy of attendance view of Himadri Poddar is annexed as R2. 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 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 11 University before the examination. In the present case the attendance view shows that the petitioner had attended 150 classes out of 287 (total delivered classes). a) Advised 2 weeks of rest by the treating doctor on and from 15.01.2024 ( para 4 & pg29 of writ); b) The University in its affidavit in opposition (Pg 13 para 15) had admitted she had missed 27 classes during said period, 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); c) The University in its affidavit in opposition (pg. 15 Para 17) and in the reasoned order annexed in the writ petition (Pg. 56 Para 5.1) had admitted that the petitioner attended 29 classes out of 55 classes during the Xavkala event and out of which 15 classes were condoned and adjusted leaving balance 11 classes where she was marked absent. If 15 classes can be condoned and adjusted then 11 remaining classes missed during such period ought to be condoned and adjusted when the aggregate percentage of attendance is below 65%. The classes missed for petitioner's participation in Xuvkala as a core committee member (para 6 pg 32 of wp )were also not condoned, the allegations are dealt with in paragraph 17 pf 15 of opposition, unfortunately the University has disowned its liability; d) Though a prayer for condonation was made to the university on 09/05/2024, 10/05/2024 and on 13/05/2024 (pg 33,34,35 of writ )the same was not considered. Total number of classes attended as per attendance view is 150 and the aggregate attendance is 55.76% as per the attendance view, total classes delivered were 284 condoning 27 classes missed for illness(pg 29 of wp) would have made and 11 for participation as 12 PR head of XUCAS as also classed missed for functioning as core committee member of Xavkala in her aggregate attendance more than 65% and like every other student between 65 to 74% of attendance petitioner would have participated in her 6h semester examination. 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 more fully the conduct of 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 though there might be some shortage of attendance in 7th semester as well as the petitioner was not allowed to take admission or attend classes unless directed by this Hon'ble Court, however the University has not regularized the admission to 7, 8 and 9 semester neither evaluated the answer scripts of 13 7,8 and 9 semester. The University has never adhered to the its regulation regarding the required attendance (clause 3.4.2) on previous semester/semesters in the present semester no word of caution to the students, unless the total number of classes are declared a students cannot ascertain his actual status of attendance before the end semester, the University could have taken extra classes in the interest of the students but it didn't. 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 R3. 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 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 14 R4. Direction for production of Records by the University in the instant proceedings:- The petitioner in the instant writ petition had alleged nepotism (para 29 pg 13), 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 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 15 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. Submission in this regard: When the petitioners have specifically averted discrimination and or nepotism, specially when the Hon'ble Court is adjudicating the lis, it was the obligation of the University to preserve and produce the record, failure of the University to do so confirms to the averments/allegations being true. 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 6th at the next appropriate semester and take the 6th semester examination at the end of the course i.e., after 10th 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 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 the petitioner, the respondents humbly point out that:- 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 16 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 entertained in a Writ Jurisdiction (reference: AIR 1964 SC, PR 477, 5 judges Bench); iii. The Hon'ble High Court having directed Respondent No. 1 to consider the representation of the Writ Petitioner, and the same having been considered in the light of statutory Rules and Regulations and on the basis of facts on record this Hon'ble Court cannot reassess the correctness of the said decision of Respondent No. 1 and no case has been made out for interference by this Hon'ble High Court; iv. 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; v. 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 his guardian with regard to maintenance of the percentage, not once but twice; vi. Even after joining, after the alleged medical cause the petitioner didn't care to be present in all subsequent classes which itself shows the negligent attitude on the part of the petitioner and next 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; vii. That an Article 226 Writ Petition 17 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). 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 55.76% only, as a result of which she was debarred from promotion to the 5th semester. As such, on or about 27 September 2024, the student Bhavini Sinha filed the instant Writ Petition seeking reliefs as prayed for in the Petition. The petitioner, Bhavini Sinha, is a student of B.A.LLB (Hons.) course, having Registration No. XK01-2112-0938-21 with CIN 21-001-06-31-0105. The duration of the course is five years spread across ten (10) semesters. At the time of admission, the petitioner and her guardian/parent signed a Declaration Form on August 06, 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 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 18 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 of 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 student will be debarred from appearing for the Semester Examination if (i) he/she has less than the required 19 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." That after admission, the petitioner was given a link through email dated 20.08.2021 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 classes of the sixth semester of the University began on 15.01.2024, with the last class scheduled to be held on 06.05.2024. On 04.04.2024, St Xavier's University, Kolkata, announced the dates for the sixth-semester exam of the BA LLB (H) course, which was to commence on 11.05.2024. The same was displayed on the University's website. The same was displayed on the digital notice boards on all the ground floors of the academic blocks. After the last class of the Semester was held on 06.05.2024, the petitioner secured 55.76% attendance as she attended 150 out of 284 classes. The same was lower than the minimum 75% attendance required to be eligible to sit for the examinations. The same is also lower than the minimum 65% required for condonation to be granted for health grounds. On 06.05.2024, the petitioner submitted a medical certificate dated 15.01.2024 to the Xavier Law School. The procedure for submitting the application was in violation of Regulation 3.4.2(a) of the University regulations, which mandates that such 20 a leave application be submitted within three days of taking the leave. Further, medical certificates as per regulations should be submitted within 15 days of rejoining classes, which was not done. On 09.05.2024, the petitioner, vide an email to the Dean of Xavier Law School, intimated respondent No. 5 that she had not received the condonation link, as a result of which she was unable to access the download link for the admit card for the end-of-semester examination. The Petitioner, in the email, also informed the Respondent that she would be applying for a transfer after this Semester, as it was becoming challenging for her father to look after her younger brother. She also requested that the dean allow her to sit for the exam so that her transfer post the Semester examination can be carried out. It is submitted that in the particular cycle of examinations, 81 students of different disciplines in different semesters had been debarred from participating in the intermediate semester examination of 2023-24 due to a shortage of attendance. Out of these 81 students, 24 students were debarred from the LLB 5-year Integrated Course. The percentage of attendance of 19 out of the said 24 candidates were although less than the required 65% (after adjustment of their period of absence), but was more than the percentage of attendance of the petitioner. The University rejected the petitioner's request for condonation as her attendance was 55.76%, which is below the minimum 65% attendance required for Condonation request to be considered as stipulated in the University Regulations. Further, the Petitioner did not submit the leave application within 3 days of the leave taken and did not submit the medical certificates within 15 days of 21 the resumption of classes. A perusal of the records shows that during the two-week period commencing 15.01.2024, 31 classes were delivered, of which the petitioner attended 4 and missed 27. Further, the event Xavrang 2024 was held on 22nd and 23rd January 2024, during the period when the petitioner claimed she was advised by her doctor to rest. Therefore, the claims that she had missed classes due to being unwell and that she had also missed classes due to taking part in extracurricular activities were contradictory. Further, no classes were held on those days. Therefore, there was no requirement for condonation of classes on those days. The Xavkala 2024 event was held on 02.03.2024, at which the petitioner participated as the PR head of Xavier's University Cultural and Arts Society (XUCAS), along with another student. Her responsibilities were primarily to draft event brochures. In the run-up to the 2 weeks commencing from 08.02.2024, and ending on 26.02.2024, a total number of 55 classes were delivered by the University, out of which the petitioner attended 29 classes and missed 26 classes, out of which a total of 15 classes were adjusted for her participation in Xavkala 2024, whose event was held on 02.03.2024. The preparation for the event was done in the month of February 2024, where the petitioner's responsibilities centred around drafting event brochures and reaching out to sponsors. Most of these activities were event based and did not require missing classes. The examinations for the 6th Semester Examination thereafter took place between 11.05.2024 and 24.05.2024. The schedule of the examinations was as hereunder: On 11.05.2024 – Law of Transfer of Property and Easement; On 15.05.2024 – Corporate Laws II; On 17.05.2024 22 –Drafting, Pleading & Conveyancing; ON 21.05.2024 – Introduction to Crime and Criminology; On 24.05.2024 – Political Science – IV. On 23.07.2024, more than a month after the Semester examinations were concluded, the Petitioner filed the Writ Petition 18899 of 2024. On 09.08.2024, the bench of Hon'ble Justice Jay Sengupta was pleased to pass an order of which the operative part is quoted as follows: “This Writ Petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to make a comprehensive representation before the Vice Chancellor of the University, who is requested to consider the same expeditiously and in accordance with law and keeping in mind the decision of this Court in WPA 18202 of 2024”. The Petitioner made a representation on 16.08.2024, and the respondent no. 2 constituted a committee on 21.08.2024 and requested the said Committee to submit its report by 29.08.2024. Due to intervening holidays, the respondents could not respond to the representation made on 14.09.2024 in accordance with the direction of the Hon'ble Court in WPA No 18899 of 2024. The Vice Chancellor made a reasoned order based on the recommendations of the committee as follows: a. For a one-day event, 55 classes could not have been missed, and the Petitioner was just the PR Head of XUCAS, and all other Core Committee Members involved in the said event have done well to maintain their attendance; b. This was an intra college event, and the petitioner was just a PR Head. Some classes were missed due to meetings and other preparations, and thus the petitioner could have easily attended the remaining classes in the day; c. The condonation of absence on account of illness is to be taken into consideration only if the student is within the 23 zone of condonation, i.e., the attendance of the student is between 65 percent and 74 percent and the student has made an application as per the rules and regulations of the university, which is not the case of the petitioner; d. The rules and regulations of the university have been rightly interpreted, and the petitioner was not eligible for condonation of her attendance on medical grounds, and the petitioner was already given an adjustment of 15 classes on account of her participation in the XAVKALA event organised by XUCAS; e. The due process of calculating aggregate attendance has been duly followed in the case of the petitioner; f. The university has followed its regulations in entirety and has never chose to follow a part of the rule and discard the other part. In the month of September, more than 2 months after the exams for the 6th Semester were concluded, the Petitioner filed the instant Writ Petition. The same was moved before this Bench when the Learned Judge was pleased to pass an interim order. The relevant part of the operative portion is quoted hereunder: “There is no harm in granting time for exchange of affidavits. However, no fruitful purpose would be served in making the Petitioner sit at home without attending classes. This would complicate the situation further in respect of the issue of attendance in future, especially in the event the petitioner succeeds in this application. In view of the above, let Opposition be filed within two weeks after the ensuing Puja Vacation. Reply, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter. List this matter for hearing under the heading "Motion" four weeks after the Puja Vacation. In the meantime, the University shall permit the petitioner to attend the classes for the VII 24 Semester without promoting her to the VII Semester or creating any equity in her favour. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on completion of usual formalities.” The instant writ petition was again moved on 18.11.2024, before this Bench, after the same was mentioned for inclusion in the list by the Advocate appearing for the petitioner on 18.11.2024, itself, on which date the Learned Judge was pleased to pass an interim order. The relevant part of the operative portion is quoted hereunder: “List this matter for hearing under the same heading on 05.12.2024 at 2 PM. In the meantime, the University authorities shall permit the petitioner, as in other cases, to sit for the 7th semester examinations. However, the same shall not create any equity in favour of the petitioner. In fact, the University need not even correct the answer papers and keep them in a sealed cover. The fate of those answer sheets would be governed by the final result of the writ petition. Parties shall act on a copy of communication made by the learned advocate on record of the petitioner.” At the outset, before dealing with the petitioner's submissions as contained in the aforesaid written notes, I 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 January 16, 2017 and in pursuance of the powers contained Section 31(XVI) of the said Act, the Executive Council of the 25 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. Your 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 semester examination. Granting relief to such a 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. The Petitioner Bhavini Sinha primarily contends that she should be allowed to sit for the sixth semester examination without repeating the sixth semester based on the following contentions. i. That she took part in the fest Xavrang and Xavkala events as a core committee member, and therefore she should have been given attendance for the same. She claims that she missed 40 classes, over a period of 2 weeks, from the second week of February to the first week of March; ii. That for a purported illness where she was allegedly advised by her doctor to take 2 weeks of rest; iii. That the College had allegedly previously allowed those with less than 65% of attendance to sit for the 26 examinations; iv. That Regulation 3.4.2 of the 5-year law course at Xavier's University is arbitrary and discriminatory as it discriminates against those studying in the three-year law program; v. That the Petitioner should be allowed to sit for the arrear papers of the 6th Semester and clear them in the 7th Semester. Your Respondents in these written submissions will deal with every contention of the Petitioner to bring to light the true facts of this case. The contention that the University did not grant her an adequate amount of attendance for the event Xavrang and Xavkala is completely false, as is stated below: i. Xavrang was held on the 22nd and 23rd January 2024. As per her own petition, she was medically unwell on those particular days. The Petitioner is trying to claim double condonation first by saying she was attending a University event on those particular days and claiming adjustment for extracurricular attendance, then also claiming condonation by submitting medical leaves; ii. The Petitioner also misled the Hon'ble Court by saying that attendance needed to be adjusted for those 2 days. However, it is a fact that no classes took place on 22nd and 23rd January 2024. Therefore, there was no question of attendance adjustment for those particular days; iii. What the Petitioner is surreptitiously claiming is that she should be granted 40 attendance classes on purported preparation for the cultural fest event Xavkala, which took place on. The Respondents submit that no such provision exists which allows students to claim leave for preparation of cultural fests without taking prior permission from the University Administration. Any condonation for extracurricular activities must be taken before the event and be approved by the faculty in charge of 27 the activity and countersigned by the Dean of the concerned Faculty. This is as per Regulation 3.4.2(b) of the University; iv. The Respondents submit that if students are allowed to claim an attendance adjustment for so-called preparation for events without taking any permission for the same, it will lead to students simply registering for any extracurricular activity and then miss classes, saying they are preparing for it. This will make the University impossible to function and lead to a complete breakdown of the academic environment; v. For the event of Xavkala which took place for one day on 02.03.2024, the Petitioner had taken part in the preparation and applied for adjustment of attendance. Based on the valid rules, 15 classes of the petitioner were adjusted. However, Petitioner cannot claim as many classes as they wish, which had no relation to the event and for which prior permission as per the rules were not taken; vi. It is submitted that many other students had taken part in the Xavkala event, which was just a one- day intra-college event. All these other students received the same treatment as to the adjustment of attendance and met the attendance requirements of the University. The contention that Petitioner should have had her attendance condoned for the purpose of illness is completely false because of the following reasons: a. Firstly, the Respondents would like to explain to the court that leave due to medical reasons cannot be a substitute for attending classes. Leave due to medical reasons becomes relevant only when the attendance is less than 75% but more than 65% as per UGC and BCI rules. In such a situation, any medical situation becomes relevant for the purpose of condonation of classes. However, the statutory regulations are 28 clear that even if there are valid medical reasons, but the attendance is below 65%, no Condonation can take place. In this case, the Petitioner's attendance is 55.76% so the question of her medical fitness is not relevant; b. The regulations as decided by the UGC, BCI and St. Xavier's University are well thought out because otherwise any student would stop attending classes and at the end of the semester, furnish medical certificates to sit for the exam. This would break down the academic atmosphere and discipline in all Universities. Further, it is for the well-being of the students that these rules have been made, as attending a minimum number of classes is essential for them to derive knowledge from the faculty to become better lawyers. Otherwise, Universities will become mere exam-taking facilities; c. Your Respondents state that, in addition to the above points made, the Petitioners assertions in the Petition about health leave were false and misleading before the court. Under regulation 3.4.2. (a) the Petitioner had to file for medical leave within three days of the leave taken and provide medical certificates within 15 days of joining the classes. Neither of these regulations was followed, as an application for medical leave was filed only on May 6, whereas the certificate was for 15.01.2024; d. However, it would not have mattered as condonation for leave can be granted for medical reasons only when the applicant is within the zone of consideration, i.e., between 65% 75% attendance. Since the petitioner's attendance is below 65% the Condonation for medical grounds cannot take place as per Regulation 3.4.2 of the University. It is submitted that the allegation that the University has allowed those with less than 65% attendance in the past 29 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 Petitioners submit that the intention of 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. i. 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; ii. 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; iii. A writ is issued in favour of a person who has some right and not for the sake of roving enquiry having scope for manoeuvring; 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 Samanta v UOI 1993 Supp (4) SCC 67; iv. 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 Cal 9448]; v. Allegations of Mala Fide are serious in nature and they essentially raise a question of fact. It is, therefore, 30 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]; vi. 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 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]; vii. 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 the concerned 31 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 further submit that the Petitioner is trying to mislead the court while suggesting that she is allowed to sit for the examinations as arrear examinations while going to the next trimester. It is submitted that the rules are very clear that arrear papers can be given in the next Semester only when a student has appeared and been unable to 32 clear the paper. However, the rules are clear that in case a student misses a semester paper due to attendance shortfall, the person cannot be allowed to sit for the exams and move on to the next Semester. This is to maintain academic discipline in the University, otherwise students will keep missing classes and keep moving to Semester after Semester keeping papers as arrears and clearing them as per their own pleasure. It is further submitted that similar guidelines are present in other top National Law Universities and many other Law Universities. In the affidavit of Reply, the contention being made by the Petitioner is that because she received an adjustment of attendance for her participation in extracurricular activities, she is liable for condonation even though she has less than 65% attendance. It is submitted that such a claim is misconceived as the Respondent University adjusts attendance for participation of students for participating in extra curricular activities pre-approved by the University. This is done for every student of the University. This does not mean that Condonation, which is a reprieve granted for students who have less than 75% attendance, but more than 65% attendance should now be infructuous. The Respondents submit that 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 "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 33 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 32]. 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 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 34 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 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 35 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; i. 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 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 36 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. рага 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 redundant. Mere one word or an expression should not be viewed jealously so as to render the entire provisions 37 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, para 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, para 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. рага 6; ix. on Learned Single Judge held to have committed a serious error in making an order based 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 sentiment by itself cannot be a ground for passing an order in relation whereto the appellants miserably fail 38 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, para 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. 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 39 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. 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 did 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 40 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, 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 41 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, 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, 42 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 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 the petitioner Bhavini Sinha, the same was not done. There even before the total calculation could be 43 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 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).” 44 14. It is true that in the case of the petitioner 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 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 grievances with the University are that illness requiring two weeks’ home rest from 15 January 2024 was not adjusted; as regards her participation as a Core Committee Member i.e., Public Relations Head of XUCAS in Xavrang and Xavkala, only 15 classes were adjusted, while the petitioner claimed that additional missed classes ought to have been condoned. The petitioner is, thus, aggrieved with the debarment from appearing in the Sixth Semester examination; the refusal to condone the petitioner’s shortage of attendance allegedly despite her medical absence and participation in extra-curricular activities as PR Head of XUCAS and Core Committee Member of Xavkala; the alleged arbitrary and inconsistent 45 treatment inasmuch as 15 classes during the Xavkala period were condoned/adjusted, while the remaining 11 classes missed during the same period were not considered for condonation; the non-regularisation and failure to declaration of results of her subsequent semesters despite her having attended the same and appeared in the examinations. 17. According to the University, the petitioner’s 6th Semester attendance was 55.76%, below the 65% threshold prescribed under Regulation 3.4.2 for consideration of condonation. The medical certificate dated 15th January 2024, along with the application for condonation, was submitted only on 6th May 2024, without a leave application within three days of the absence or the medical certificate within 15 days of joining classes, as required under Regulation 3.4.2(a). The University further stated that the petitioner had already been given adjustment of 15 classes for her participation in XAVKALA 2024 and that her remaining absence was not liable to be further condoned or adjusted, particularly as her responsibilities as PR Head primarily involved drafting event brochures and reaching out to sponsors. The University also disputed her claim regarding participation in XAVRANG, stating that no classes were held on 22nd and 23rd January 2024 and that she was not a Core Committee member of the Student’s Board which organised the event. 18. Therefore, the prime thrust of the petitioner’s claim is that she participated in certain programmes and / or extra-curricular activities, mostly on behalf of the University, but was not granted exemption for the same. The University, on the other hand, contended that some exemption 46 was granted that were just. Claims of the petitioner as regards illness appear to be secondary. 19. Here, a practical distinction is required to be made in respect of extra- curricular activities and illness. Perhaps, there is more force in the 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 47 cases where such permission was granted, the papers were forwarded for necessary action. 20. As stated earlier, here the petitioner’s prime contentions are that she was not granted exemption for participating in some programmes and /or extra-curricular activities. A few days were exempted by the University on this score, but not all. In his reasoned order the Vice-Chancellor had clarified that the adjustment of 15 classes was done on the basis of attendance adjustment form duly signed by the Professor-in-Charge of XUCAS and counter-signed by the Dean as in other similar cases. The petitioner had to ensure that either she complied with the attendance requirement for the University course or she took steps to obtain prior permission of the concerned authorities in participating in such activities. The petitioner, however, has not been able to show that she obtained prior permission as required for participating in all the extra-curricular activities for which she had claimed exemption. 21. As regards the medical prescription dated 15.01.2024 furnished by the petitioner, there is no diagnosis whatsoever mentioned therein. Among other things, an anti-biotic, an anti-histamine, vitamin C and paracetamol were prescribed for five days, but rest was suggested for two weeks. This does not appear to be such an exceptional case as to warrant an intervention by this Court, at least on this score. 22. That apart, not much importance can be attached to the apparent discrepancy between the purported live attendance view and the final 48 counting of attendance. The former gives a cursory glance of attendance so as to keep the student aware of the overall situation. However, the latter has to get precedence in view of its compliance with the Rules in question. 23. Ultimately, the University records show the petitioner’s attendance to be a dismal 55.76% 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 - (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 meantime; 49 (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.)