IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon’ble Justice Jay Sengupta WPA 23562 of 2024 Tridiv Paul Vs St. Xavier’s University and others. For the petitioner : Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay Mr. Rahul Kumar Singh Md. Danish Farooqui .....Advocates For the respondent nos. 1 to 3 : 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 For the UGC : Mr. Debjani Ghosal .....Advocate 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 Petitioner was enrolled in the B.Com LLB (Hons.) course of the Respondent No. 1 University in the year 2021. The B.Com LLB (Hons) course is a professional undergraduate course of 5 years duration, divided into ten semesters of six months each. The Petitioner has appeared in the examinations of five semesters. On the morning of 1 November 2023, the Petitioner was playing a football match in the Annual Xavier's Inter-Department Tournament, 2023. During his football game, at around 7:45-7:50 am, the petitioner slid into a tackle wherein he tripped and fell, and during his fall, the Petitioner's abdominal region suffered a heavy impact. Unaware of his severe internal injury, the Petitioner continued his game and, after the conclusion of his game, also attended classes. However, by noon, the pain became excruciatingly unbearable. The Petitioner was initially taken to the infirmary of his College, but when his condition did not improve, the Petitioner was shifted to Ruby General 3 Hospital. After several scans and imaging at Ruby Hospital, it was revealed that the Petitioner's renal cyst had burst due to his collision and fall during the football game, and consequently, there was internal bleeding. The doctors of Ruby Hospital performed a process of Angio embolization upon the Petitioner to prevent his internal bleeding, and after the successful conclusion of the process, the Petitioner was shifted to the ICU ward of the Ruby Hospital. Petitioner was discharged from the hospital on 10.11.2023, but since he suffered a severe hematoma in his abdomen, the Petitioner's free movements were restricted for a considerable period of time, and he was advised to take rest. The cause of Petitioner's injury was reported by Ruby Hospital in the Medico-Legal Case Report prepared by the Hospital on 1st November 2023 (Para 24 @ Pg. 18 of Affidavit in Reply) and also in the Newsletter of Ruby Hospital published in December 2023. Due to his medical condition, the Petitioner could not attend classes till 16.11.2024 and consequently, his attendance dropped below 75%. However, the Petitioner's shortage of attendance was condoned by the Respondent University, and he was allowed to take his 5th semester examination. However, due to his medical condition, the Petitioner could not appear in 2 examinations of the 5th Semester. Petitioner's 6th Semester classes commenced in the 2nd week of January. However, since the Petitioner had to undergo repeated blood transfusions to cure the persisting hematoma, he was constrained and compelled to miss a number of classes in the 6th Semester. Petitioner missed several of his classes in the 6th Semester during the months of January 2024, February 2024, and the early parts of March 2024, as, during this 4 period, even a minor exertion would cause the Petitioner nausea and light- headedness. The Petitioner's attendance dropped as low as 35% during the middle of his 6th Semester. The Petitioner duly informed and updated the faculty of Respondent No. 1 University about his medical conditions, who assured the Petitioner that his case would be considered compassionately in view of his medical condition. The Petitioner's medical condition somewhat improved from the middle of the month of March 2024, and as a result, he regularly and diligently attended classes for the remaining part of the 6th Semester. The Petitioner's attendance fairly improved from 35% to 60.98% due to his punctuality in the later parts of March 2024 and in the months of April 2024 and May 2024, but the same was short of the requisite cut-off. Total number of classes – 287 classes; No. Of classes attended by the petitioner (60.98%) – 175 classes; No. of classes required for achieving 65% attendance – 187 classes (petitioner need a condonation of 12 classes, i.e., of 2 days); No. of classes required for achieving 75% attendance – 215 classes (petitioner need a condonation of 40 classes i.e., of 7 days). The 6th Semester examination was scheduled to commence on 11.03.2025. The Petitioner made an application for condonation of his attendance. The petitioner disclosed the reason for his absence and also provided supporting documents like prescriptions, discharge summaries, and reports along with his application. Contrary to the University's assurances, the Petitioner was not allowed to appear for his 6th Semester Examination. Petitioner was constrained to file a Writ Petition assailing Respondent No. 1's decision of not allowing the Petitioner to sit for his 6th Semester Examination in 2024. 5 Despite all diligence on the part of the petitioner, such a writ petition, was prepared and filed by him before this Hon'ble Court only on 31.07.2024, and the same was registered as WPA 19532 of 2024. WPA 19532 of 2024 was taken up for consideration by this Bench on 19.08.2024. The Respondent University, despite acknowledging the Petitioner's medical condition, submitted that such condition existed earlier and not during the 6th Semester and hence the Petitioner's case cannot be considered favourably. The Hon'ble Court held that the prime purpose of incorporating the rules of attendance is to inculcate discipline amongst the students and not to use it as a means of punishment. It was held that the Petitioner did suffer from a serious medical condition, and it was quite possible that even for a later period, the effects would have persisted. This Hon'ble Court was thus pleased to grant liberty to the Petitioner to make a comprehensive representation before the Respondent No. 2 within a week and requested the Respondent No. 2 to consider such prayer as expeditiously as possible. Petitioner made a comprehensive representation before the Respondent No. 2 on 24.08.2024, but the same was not considered by the Respondent No. 2. This compelled the Petitioner to file another Writ Petition being WPA 22762 of 2024, on 09.09.2024. In WPA 22762 of 2024, this Hon'ble Court directed the respondent University to communicate its Reasoned Order to the Petitioner by 12.09.2024. Respondent University communicated the reasoned Order dated 12.09.2024 vide which they rejected the prayer of Condonation of Petitioner on three grounds: i Prayer for condonation was made on 06.05.2024 for an illness that occurred in November 2023; ii. Petitioner was 6 ill in November 2023 and not during the 6th Semester; iii. Petitioner's attendance of 60.98% which was below the condonable limit. Petitioner has challenged the Reasoned Order dated 12.09.2024 and has further prayed for allowing him to sit for the 6th Semester Examination by condoning the shortfall of his attendance by filing this Writ Petition on 13th September 2024. After filing this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has been allowed by this Hon'ble Court to attend his classes by dint of an interim Order dated 17.09.2024. He was not allowed to attend classes in the 7th Semester prior to September 2024 despite his repeated representations to the University. Consequently, the Petitioner has a shortage of attendance in the 7th Semester as well. The Petitioner was allowed to sit for his 7th Semester internal examination by an interim Order dated 23.09.2024, for his 7th Semester Final Examination by an interim Order dated 18.09.2024, attend classes for the 8th Semester by an interim Order dated 14.01.2025 and 8th Semester internal examination by an interim Order dated 11.02.2025. The petitioner was allowed to appear for the 8th Semester Final Examination by the University and was also allowed to attend 9th Semester Classes by the University. However, the University is neither accepting the fees from the Petitioner nor is it checking the examination copies of the Petitioner. Petitioner's case falls in the category of exceptional cases. The Petitioner suffered an injury while playing in an intra-University football tournament, as a result of which a cyst in his kidney was ruptured. Ruby Hospital performed a process of Angio embolization upon the Petitioner to prevent his internal bleeding on 01.11.2024. However, even during the period between 7 January and March 2024, the Petitioner suffered from the effects of such injury and from diminished haemoglobin in the blood. Thus, the Petitioner's difficulty ought to be considered as one of the exceptional cases that are not envisaged by the Rule makers while framing the rules of attendance. Bamang Nabam v. North Eastern Hill University, 2025 SCC OnLine Megh 399, Para 1 to 4 and 12 to 18) Pawan Pratap Singh and Others v. Reevan Singh and Others (2011) 3 SCC 267, Para 55; ii. The prime purpose of having rules of attendance ought to be to inculcate discipline in a student and not to use as a means of punishment. This Hon'ble Court, in its Order dated 24.08.2024, held that the Petitioner did suffer from a serious medical condition for some time, and it is quite possible that even for a later period, the effects would have persisted; iii. In view of the severe nature of his injury, the Petitioner was not able to attend a majority of his classes during the period of January and March 2024, and resultantly, the Petitioner's attendance fell to around 35% in March 2024. However, when his condition improved, the Petitioner resumed attending classes and attended almost all his classes between the latter part of March 2024 and May 2024. Due to his regularity, the Petitioner's attendance was improved to 60.98% in May 2024. However, it fell short of the requisite attendance limit as prescribed by the Rules of Attendance framed by the Respondent University. Thus, given the exceptional nature of the Petitioner's case, the same required a favourable and compassionate consideration by the Respondent University; iv. Petitioner required only 2 days' condonation to achieve 65% attendance and 7 days' condonation to achieve 75% attendance. Petitioner submitted the requisite 8 medical documents for condonation of his attendance, but the same were not considered by the Respondent University. The University's Order dated 12.09.2024 is unsustainable; v. Although the Petitioner made a prayer for condonation of his attendance before the Respondent University, the Respondent University did not consider the same favourably on the pretext that the prayer for condonation was made on 06.05.2024 for an illness that occurred in November 2023 and also on the pretext that the Petitioner's attendance was below the condonable limit; vi. The Respondent University's contention that the Rule requiring a minimum of 65% attendance to be eligible for promotion is absolute and cannot be relaxed in any given case is contrary to the facts and records. The Respondent University has obeyed the Judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in WPA 14385 of 2024, which was filed in a similar situation, where a student of the BA LLB (Hons) course, while playing cricket for the Respondent University, sustained an injury and consequently was unable to maintain the mandatory minimum attendance of 65% during his second semester. This Hon'ble Court condoned such a shortage vide its Order dated 20.05.2024 and directed the respondent University to allow the student to participate in his remaining examinations and to promote him to his next semester. The Petitioner in WPA 14385 of 2024 had 63.22% attendance. The directions passed in WPA 14385 of 2024 have been accepted and complied with by the respondent University, and no appeal has been preferred against the said Order till date. (Pg. 106 @ 108 of WP) (D. Navinchandra and Co. v. Union of India, 1989 SCC Online Bom 485, Para 4 and 5; vii. The Respondent University's contention that the Petitioner 9 did not apply for condonation of shortage of his attendance, within three days from the date of his absence ought to be rejected inasmuch as the Petitioner duly intimated his mentors and faculty about his existing medical issues after surgery and hospitalisation throughout January and February 2024 and he was assured by his faculty members that his case would be considered sympathetically in view of his prevailing medical condition; viii. The Respondent University's contention that the Petitioner made an application for condonation of an illness that occurred in November 2023 after many months is unsustainable inasmuch as the Petitioner's medical condition was a continuous one and thus he cumulatively submitted the entire medical documents along with an application for condonation of shortage of attendance on 06.05.2024 but even prior to May 2024 he duly informed his faculty about his medical condition and prayed for condonation of shortage of his attendance. In any case, non-adherence to the time limit of three days does not render any application made by the Petitioner un- entertainable, more so when the onus of considering such representation was thrust upon the University Authorities vide this Hon'ble Court's Order dated 19th August 2024; ix. This Hon'ble Court directed the University to consider the possible effects of a serious medical condition and the effects thereof in the later period. The impugned Order dated 12th September 2024 fails to consider such aspects and decides an issue which it was not called upon to answer; x. The Respondent University, while holding that the Petitioner's illness, which occurred in the month of November 2023, was in the previous (5th) Semester, failed to appreciate that apart from illness, the 10 process of recovery from such illness and medical procedures undertaken to cure the same, also comes under the umbrella of health condition. The Respondent University, in not taking into account the period of recovery post-medical procedures (in the 6th Semester), has committed an error unsustainable in logic and law. Shortage of Attendance in the 7th Semester is not attributable to the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 by his deliberate and unreasonable inaction in considering the Petitioner's representation till 12.09.2024 despite the direction of this Hon'ble Court to do the same as early as possible, prevented the Petitioner from attending regular classes of 7th Semester and thus the shortage of attendance in 7th Semester, if any, is not at all attributable to the Petitioner but to the Respondent University's deliberate inaction. Judgments relied upon by the Petitioner - i. Pawan Pratap Singh and Others v. Reevan Singh and Others (2011) 3 SCC 267, Para 55-If the facts of a case are extraordinary and they fall outside the ambit of rules, then any attempt to fit the peculiar facts into a general rule would amount to doing violence to the Rules; ii. Bamang Nabam v. North Eastern Hill University, 2025 SCC OnLine Megh 399, Para 1 to 4 and 12 to 18 Rules regarding attendance could only cover a situation where, in normal circumstances, a student is absent and his attendance falls below 70 per cent. But this rule certainly does not cover extraordinary circumstances like illness or bereavement in a student's family, natural disaster, riot strife, political upheavals, other acts of God, and so on, which prevent a student or students from attending classes; iii. D. Navinchandra and Co. v. Union of India, 1989 SCC Online Bom 485, Para 4 and 5 The observation that a 11 judgment will not be treated as a precedent cannot come in the way of granting the reliefs in a subsequent Writ Petition if the facts and circumstances governing the subsequent case are identical to the facts which were before the court in the earlier cases; iv. Aditya Chatterjee v. St. Xavier's University, WPA 14385 of 2024 (Judgment and Order dated 20th May 2024) This Hon'ble Court condoned such shortage vide its Order dated 20th May 2024 and directed the Respondent University to allow the student to participate in his remaining examinations and to promote him to his next semester. The Petitioner in WPA 14385 of 2024 had 63.22% attendance. The directions passed in WPA 14385 of 2024 have been accepted and complied with by the Respondent University, and no appeal has been preferred against the said Order till date; v. S. Sakthivel Versus Registrar, SRM University and Another, (2024) SCC Online Madras 6028, Para 4, 6, and 7 - Lack of Attendance (54.64%) was condoned by the Court in the exercise of powers exercised under Article 226; vi. K. Mahalakshmi v. The Director, The School of Excellence in Law, (2014) SCC Online Madras 6717, Para 5 & 6-The Hon'ble Court held that the rigidity of the Rule of Law should not be applied in exceptional cases. The Hon'ble Court observed that there are cases where an exception should be carved out of the general Rule. If the academic track record of a student is good and if the lack of attendance is on account of pursuing another recognised, valid course and not a course of any dubious nature, the student should be encouraged; vii. Ankita Meena v. University of Delhi, (2021) 16 SCC 491, Paragraph 4, 8, 10, 11 Petitioner's attendance fell short due to pregnancy in the 4th Semester. Upon challenging the 12 University's decision of not allowing her to sit for the examination, the Petitioner's Writ Petition as well as the Letters Patent Appeal were dismissed. When the Petitioner approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court, her SLP was admitted, and she was allowed to attend classes and appear for examination during the interregnum. The Petitioner completed her course during the pendency of litigation and even got the results of all the semester examinations except the 5th Semester. Thus, the Hon'ble Apex Court allowed her to complete the course by declaring that the lis did not survive in view of subsequent developments; viii. Sudipta Chowdhury & Others V. West Bengal State Council of Technical Education 2011 SCC Online Calcutta 1349- Student was allowed to sit in the examination despite the lack of attendance; ix. Shesandu Sekhar Mallick & Others V. West Bengal State Council of Technical Education 2011 SCC Online Calcutta 1350 Student was allowed to sit in the examination despite the lack of attendance. Distinguishing the Judgments Cited by the respondent University; i. Central Board of Secondary Education v. Nikhil Gulati, (1998) 3 SCC 5-In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court cautioned the Hon'ble High Courts from exercising their discretion casually. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not put a complete embargo on passing interim Orders in favour of students in cases of shortage of attendance. High Courts were suggested to justify their decision while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226. In the Petitioner's case, the decision for condonation can be justified as the Petitioner suffered from a severe illness and its aftereffects, which genuinely prevented the Petitioner from attending classes. So, the Petitioner's case is extraordinary, which is beyond 13 the purview of the Rules; ii. Maharshi Davanand University v. Anto Joseph (Dr), (1998) 6 SCC 215, Para 1 and 7 The facts of this case do not reflect that the student in this case suffered from any medical condition. Merely because the student had completed three years in his medical course, his case was treated as a special case by the High Court. Such reasoning did not sit well with the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which led to the passing of this Judgment. However, in the instant case, the Petitioner suffered from a severe medical condition and its aftereffects, which genuinely prevented the Petitioner from attending classes. Thus, the Petitioner's case merits favourable consideration by this Hon'ble Court; iii. St. Xavier's University Kolkata v. Yash Shroff, MAT 1324 of 2024 - The cited case is a consent order (Page No. 5, 2nd Paragraph). The Petitioner of the cited case did not suffer from a serious medical condition like that of the Petitioner herein. Furthermore, in the cited case, the Hon'ble Division was not apprised of the fact that the Rules also permit the Respondent University to condone the days on which a student was absent for a valid reason (including medical condition persisted) and after such condonation, the University is entitled to award the attendance for those days to a student on which he was absent for valid reasons. Only after such exercise can it be adjudged whether the attendance of a student falls within a condonable limit or not. Admittedly, the Petitioner made a request for condonation of his attendance by enclosing documents in support of his illness on the days when he was absent. However, the University did not consider the same. Such conduct of the University is under challenge in this Writ Petition. University of Calcutta v. Amit Jalan (2000) 1 CHN 668, Para 3, 14 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19-In this case the Law Department of University of Calcutta granted three months condonation en masse to all the students and brought them to the level of 55% on medical grounds and then permitted all the students to appear in their examinations on payment of fees of Rs. 50/-. Such action did not have the sanction of the Syndicate of the University (Para 9). Such action of the University was under challenge in the cited case. The ratio of this judgment will not be applicable in the instant case, as there has not been any mass-scale condonation. Furthermore, in paragraph 13 of the cited case, the Hon'ble Division Bench, inter alia, held that the relaxation should be granted only in exceptional cases and not en masse. The instant case is an exceptional case as the Petitioner suffered from severe illness and its aftereffects, which genuinely prevented the Petitioner from attending classes. So, the Petitioner's case is extraordinary, which is beyond the purview of the Rules; v. Tarun Kundu v. State of West Bengal and others (2000) SCC Online Calcutta 649, Para 7 The cited case prohibits a person from claiming equality of an illegal act inasmuch as a writ cannot be invoked in a case where equality is being sought for on the ground of commission of illegality on the part of the authorities concerned. However, the relaxation granted to Aditya Chatterjee due to his medical condition is not illegal. The Respondent University has accepted the Judgment passed in WPA 14385 of 2024 due to the extraordinary and exceptional nature of his case. The Petitioner's injury is similar to the injury suffered by Aditya Chatterjee, and the consequences faced by the Petitioner are much more grave than those of Aditya Chatterjee. Hence, the Petitioner's case merits favourable 15 consideration before this Hon'ble Court. Petitioner is not seeking any relief dehors the attendance rules; vi. Jyotsnamayee Mishra v. The State of Odisha SLP(C) 13984 of 2023, Para 31 In the cited case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the court cannot put a stamp on illegalities committed by the department while perpetuating the same. It was held that Article 14 does not envisage negative equality. However, the relaxation granted to Aditya Chatterjee due to his medical condition is not illegal. The Respondent University-has accepted the Judgment passed in WPA 14385 of 2024 due to the extraordinary and exceptional nature of his case. The Petitioner's injury is similar to the injury suffered by Aditya Chatterjee, and the consequences faced by the Petitioner are much more grave than those of Aditya Chatterjee. Hence, the Petitioner's case merits favourable consideration before this Hon'ble Court. Petitioner is not seeking any relief dehors the attendance rules; vii. U.P. State Sugar Corpn. Ltd. v. Sant Raj Singh, (2006) 9 SCC 82, Para 23, 24In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if a policy is not challenged despite its knowledge, then it amounts to an admission of policy. However, the ratio of this case is not applicable in the Petitioner's case as the Petitioner is not seeking any relief dehors the policy of the Respondent University. The Rules of the Respondent University permit the Respondent University to condone the days on which a student was absent for a valid reason (including a medical condition that persisted), and after such condonation, the University is entitled to award the attendance for those days to a student on which he was absent for valid reasons. Only after such exercise can it be adjudged whether the attendance of a student falls within 16 a condonable limit or not. Admittedly, the Petitioner made a request for condonation of his attendance by enclosing documents in support of his illness on the days when he was absent. However, the University did not consider the same. Such conduct of the University is under challenge in this Writ Petition. So, the Petitioner's case is extraordinary, which is beyond the purview of the Rules or policy; viii. M.D. University v. Jahan Singh, (2007) 5 SCC 77, Para 28-In the cited case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Article 14 of the Constitution of India carries with it a positive concept. Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be invoked for perpetuating illegality. However, the relaxation granted to Aditya Chatterjee due to his medical condition is not illegal. The--Respondent-University has accepted the Judgment passed in WPA 14385 of 2024 due to the extraordinary and exceptional-nature-of-his-case. The Petitioner's injury is similar to the injury suffered by Aditya Chatterjee, and the consequences faced by the Petitioner are much more grave than those of Aditya Chatterjee. Hence, the Petitioner's case merits favourable consideration before this Hon'ble Court. Petitioner is not seeking any relief dehors the attendance rules; ix. Tanusree Mazumder v. The State of West Bengal and Others MAT 156 of 2024, Para 14 to 17 In the cited case, it was held that if there is any lacuna in the rules, then it is the duty of a lawmaker and not the court to cure such lacuna. However, the cited case was filed on the issue of compassionate appointment. Compassionate Appointment is not a vested right but an exception, and thus, in the cases of compassionate appointment, the rules are strictly interpreted. The Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 18 of the case of State of 17 Karnataka v. Bheemesh, (2021) 20 SCC 707, has held that compassionate appointment was always considered to be an exception to the normal method of recruitment and perhaps looked down upon with lesser compassion for the individual and greater concern for the rule of law. However, the issue of compassionate appointment and the issue of permitting a student to appear in an examination cannot be treated on the same footing, as the Petitioner, being a bona fide student, has every right to appear in his examinations, unlike the applicants for compassionate appointment. Furthermore, the Petitioner is not seeking any relief dehors the attendance rules of the University. Chaudhary Ali Zia Kabir v. GGSIP University & Ors. 2011 SCC Online Delhi 1356, Para 13 & 14-In the cited case, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, inter alia, held that 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. However, this remark is not the ratio decidendi of the Judgment. It is a parting remark of the Bench, and therefore it must be treated as an obiter. Furthermore, the Petitioner in the cited case was not suffering from severe illness like the Petitioner herein, nor did the Petitioner undergo a serious medical procedure. It would not be prudent to assert that the Petitioner herein, despite being prevented from attending classes due to genuine reasons, is required to be taught another lesson by prohibiting him from attending classes. This Hon'ble Court, in its Order dated 19.08.2024, rendered in WPA 19532 of 2024, has already held that the rules of attendance cannot be used as a means of punishment by the Respondent University; xi. State of Uttarakhand v. Archana Shukla, (2011) 15 SCC 194 18 Para 6 - In the cited case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if there is a conflict between the law and equity, then the law should prevail. The consideration here was that the Writ Petitioner/Respondent, having been recruited under the Rules of 2004, could not get seniority from 1988 for their ad-hoc or temporary period. However, this judgment is not applicable in the instant case as there is no conflict between the law and the equity here. It is also distinguishable on facts. In the instant case, the Rules also permit the Respondent University to condone the days on which a student was absent for a valid reason (including a medical condition that persisted), and after such condonation, the University is entitled to award the attendance for those days to a student on which he was absent for valid reasons. Only after such exercise can it be adjudged whether the attendance of a student falls within a condonable limit or not. Admittedly, the Petitioner made a request for condonation of his attendance by enclosing documents in support of his illness on the days when he was absent. However, the University did not consider the same. Such conduct of the University is under challenge in this Writ Petition; xii. GM (Marketing), Hindustan Fertiliser Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Subodh Chandra Das, (1988) 1 SCC 594 Para 2 In the cited case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that the High Court wrongly applied compassion in a case of an employee whose date of birth was erroneous in the records. The Hon'ble High Court, out of compassion, directed the employer to permit the employee to work for three more years. The reason given by the High Court was found to be wholly untenable by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, no law was laid down in the cited case. No ratio is laid down in that case. It 19 is an Order on the facts of the said case. Furthermore, the Petitioner is not seeking mere compassion from this Hon'ble Court. The Petitioner has a justifiable right to appear for his examination, as his prayer for condonation of attendance, which was backed by documentary evidence, was not considered appropriately by the University. Thus, the cited case is not applicable in the Petitioner's case; xiii. State of Bihar v. Amrendra Kumar Mishra, (2006) 12 SCC 561 Para 15. In the cited case, the High Court directed the State of Bihar to allow Mr. Amrendra Kumar Mishra to join in his post 12 years after his appointment, when the panel had also expired. Hon'ble Apex Court criticised such an exercise and reiterated that while construing a statute, 'sympathy' has no role to play. However, the ratio laid down in the cited case is not applicable in the Petitioner's case as the Petitioner is not seeking mere compassion from this Hon'ble Court. The Petitioner has a justifiable right to appear for his examination, as his prayer for condonation of attendance, which was backed by documentary evidence, was not considered appropriately by the University. Moreover, there is no question of the expiry of any panel in this case; xiv. Guru Nanak Dev University v. Parminder Kr. Bansal, (1993) 4 SCC 401 Para 7. In the cited case, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that ill-conceived sympathy masquerades as interlocutory justice, exposing judicial discretion to the criticism of degenerating into private benevolence. Admissions cannot be ordered without regard to the eligibility of the candidates. The Petitioner is not ineligible for admission in the instant case, and the Petitioner is not seeking mere compassion from this Hon'ble Court. The Petitioner has a justifiable right to 20 appear for his examination, as his prayer for condonation of attendance, which was backed by documentary evidence, was not considered appropriately by the University. Thus, the ratio of the cited case is not applicable in the case of the Petitioner; xv. C.B.S.E. v. P. Sunil Kumar, (1998) 5 SCC 377, Para 2 to 4 - In the cited case the students studying in an unaffiliated institution were allowed to appear in the examination by dint of an interim Order and after the conclusion of their examination, CBSE was directed to issue mark sheets and certificates of these students despite the fact that the institutions where they studied were not affiliated. Such an Order was passed against the bylaws of the CBSE, which only permitted regular students of affiliated institutions to take examinations. However, the ratio laid down in the cited case is not applicable in the Petitioner's case as the Petitioner is not seeking mere compassion from this Hon'ble Court. The Petitioner has a justifiable right to appear for his examination, as his prayer for condonation of attendance, which was backed by documentary evidence, was not considered rightly by the University; xvi. Sanchalakshri v. Vijayakumar Raghuvirprasad Mehta, (1998) 8 SCC 245. This judgment has been cited to buttress the point that the High Court/Tribunals do not possess the same power as the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for doing complete justice. Such an observation has been made in the cited case of Sanchalakshri, after placing reliance on the case of B. C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749. However, in paragraph 23 of B. C. Chaturvedi (Supra), B. L. Hansaria, J. has held while concurring with the majority judgment that "It 21 deserves to be pointed out that the mere fact that there is no provision parallel to Article 142 relating to the High Courts, can be no ground to think that they have not to do complete justice, and if moulding of relief would do complete justice between the parties, the same cannot be ordered. Absence of provision like Article 142 is not material according to me... I would say that the power to do complete justice also inheres in every court, not to speak of a court of plenary jurisdiction like a High Court. Of course, this power is not as wide as this Court has under Article 142, i.e., however, a different matter." Ananya Bansal v. Delhi University, LPA 132 of 2025 - In paragraph no. 8 of the cited case, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, inter alia, held that a shortage of attendance can be condoned for some urgent or unavoidable circumstances like medical emergencies, etc. In the cited case, illness was not cited as a ground for absence. Thus, the judicial observation in this case supports the plea of the Petitioners since the Petitioner suffered from a severe illness and its aftereffects, which genuinely prevented the Petitioner from attending classes. So, the Petitioner's case is extraordinary, which is beyond the purview of the Rules. 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 the petitioner, the respondents humbly points 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 a recent judgment of St. Xavier's University Kolkata and Ors. vs. Yash Shroff, being MAT No. 1324 of 22 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 entertained in a Writ Jurisdiction (reference: AIR 1964 SC. Pg 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 23 and society at large; 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]. 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 60.98% only, as a result of which she was debarred from promotion to the 7th semester. As such, on or about 6 September 2024, the student Tridiv Paul filed the instant Writ Petition seeking reliefs as prayed for in the Petition. The petitioner, Tridiv Paul, is a student of B. Com LLB (Hons.) course, Academic Year 2021-2022, duration of which is five years spread across ten (10) semesters. At the time of admission, the petitioner and his 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 (hereinafter referred to as the said 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 and 3.4.2 of the said Regulations are quoted as under: “3.4.1-A student must maintain a 24 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 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, authorised 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." The Respondents state that after the admission, the petitioner was given a link through email dated August 20, 2021, so as to 25 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. During the 6th semester, relevant for this writ petition, classes commenced on 15.01.2024 and ended on 06.05.2024 with total delivered classes being 287, out of which the petitioner attended only 175 classes being 60.98% of the classes delivered and thus the petitioner's attendance being less than the required minimum as per Regulation 3.4.1 of the said Regulations, the petitioner was attendance debarred from appearing in the 6th semester examinations which commenced from 11.05.2024 in pursuance of Notification No. SXUK/COE/Exam/001/04/24, published by the University on 04.04.2024, on the University's website and also displayed on the Notice Board in the University campus. Thus, the petitioner was unable to download his admit card on 09.05.2024, 4:00 PM, being the date and time from which the admit cards could be downloaded as per the above notification issued by the University. Upon being debarred from appearing in the semester examinations on account of shortfall in attendance, the petitioner filed a writ petition being WPA No. 19532 of 2024 on 31.07.2024, claiming condonation of his attendance on account of injury suffered during the month of November 2023 while participating in certain games and praying that the petitioner be allowed to get admitted to the 7th semester and attend the classes and curriculum of the 7th semester after being allowed to appear and clear papers of 6th semester as if arrears of papers with the even Semester of the next academic year. The petitioner also 26 claimed that he was never informed that he may be debarred from the upcoming examination, and he believed that, much like on earlier occasions, on health grounds, his shortage in attendance percentage would be condoned, for which he made his application before the office of the Respondent on 06.05.2024. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Hon'ble Court vide Order dated August 19, 2024, whereby the petitioner was granted liberty to make a comprehensive representation before the Vice- chancellor of the University within a week from the date and the Vice- Chancellor of the University was requested to consider such prayer in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible. Thereafter, the petitioner, in pursuance of the aforesaid liberty granted by this Hon'ble Court, on 24.08.2024, sent a representation for consideration before the Vice-Chancellor of the University vide speed post received by the University on 26.08.2024. Even while the said representation was pending consideration, the petitioner, on 06.09.2024, filed another writ petition being WPA No. 22762 of 2024, on the same grounds, praying for issuance of directions upon the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 24.08.2024 and to allow the petitioner to get admitted to the 7th semester and attend the classes and curriculum of the 7th semester after being allowed to appear and clear papers of 6th semester on urgent basis. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Hon'ble Court vide Order dated 10.09.2024, recording the submissions of the University that the Vice- Chancellor has constituted a committee to look into the issue and the Vice- Chancellor has already taken a decision on the issue and is about to 27 communicate the same to the petitioner by 12.09.2024. Thereafter, the decision of the Vice-Chancellor of the University rejecting the representation of the petitioner dated 24.08.2024, was communicated to the petitioner through email on 12.09.2024, at 12:58 PM, where the petitioner was informed as under: That the petitioner's attendance in the 6th semester was 60.98% which was below the minimum required attendance of 65% for the petitioner to be eligible for condonation on grounds of illness as per the Regulation 3.4 relating to Student's Attendance. Moreover, in spite of the petitioner's communication dated 06.05.2024, seeking condonation of shortage of attendance in the 6th semester, in relation to the petitioner's illness in the month of November 2023, the same could not be considered since it was related to an illness in the previous semester i.e. 5th semester for which semester the petitioner's attendance was considered for condonation since the petitioner's attendance in the 5th semester was 65.30%. Upon being aggrieved by the decision of the Vice-Chancellor, the petitioner on 13.09.2024, filed this writ petition being WPA No. 23562 of 2024 which was moved before the Hon'ble Justice Jay Sengupta on 17.09.2024. In the said writ petition the petitioner has claimed condonation for classes missed in the months of January, February and March, 2024 (without specifying the days and the number of classes missed/claimed) on account of prolonged illness due to an injury which the petitioner sustained on 01.11.2023, while he was studying in the fifth (5th) semester and for which due consideration was given in the 5th semester. The petitioner further claimed to have submitted his medical documents before the officials 28 of the Respondent University on 06.05.2024 and claimed that the petitioner was assured that the shortage of his attendance would be condoned in view of his medical conditions and also stated that the petitioner was allowed to appear in the internal examination of the 6th semester. The petitioner further claimed that the petitioner on the eve of his 6th semester examination was informed by the officials of the Respondent University that he would not be allowed to appear in his 6th semester examination due to a shortage of his poor attendance. The petitioner further claimed that the mother of the petitioner was informed by the Respondent No. 3 that the petitioner's attendance cannot be condoned on medical grounds, as this would result in similar prayers from other students. Thereafter, the petitioner referred to the writ petitions filed by other students namely Pradosh Mistry and Naman Chandak and referred to the orders dated 15.07.2024 and 24.07.2024 passed by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Pradosh Mistry in WPA No. 17956 of 2024 and order 02.07.2024 passed in the case of Naman Chandak in WPA No. 15732 of 2024 for consideration of his Petition. It is to be noted that even though the examinations for the 6th semester were held in the month of May, 2024, the petitioner approached this Hon'ble Court for the very first time vide Writ Petition being WPA No. 19532 of 2024, which was filed on 31.07.2024, upon Orders in the case of other students as above. The said writ petition, being WPA No. 23562 of 2024, was heard on several dates and in pursuance of directions of this Hon'ble Court, affidavits were exchanged. The petitioner had filed a written note of arguments (signed by the AOR on 01.09.2025) on 19.11.2025, before 29 the Hon'ble Court, and served a copy of the same upon the advocate for the respondents. Upon checking the records, it is found that certain points were argued by the petitioner during the course of the hearing, but we confine our arguments to the said written note of arguments filed by the petitioner, as the petitioner did not press the arguments. At the outset, before dealing with the petitioner's submissions and relied upon decisions 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 16.01.2017 and in pursuance of the powers contained in 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. In the light of the above and the facts of the given case, I say that the petitioner's absence from classes in the sixth (6th) semester could not be condoned by the University on account of the following reasons:- On 06.05.2024, the petitioner, vide a letter, intimated the Dean of Xavier Law School, the respondent no. 3, that he was facing a shortfall in attendance which is below 75% (61%). The petitioner also mentioned in that letter that he had faced an accident while playing football owing to which he 30 suffered internal bleeding from the left renal area during the month of November, 2023 and was hospitalised for a considerable period of time and he was discharged and was advised restricted movement and periodic check up due to which reason his attendance in 6th semester falling below the compulsory percentage required and requested for condonation of shortfall in attendance. Along with the said letter, a handwritten undated certificate on the letterhead of Ruby General Hospital Pvt. Ltd. was enclosed, which certificate was purportedly signed by a doctor (without stating the Registration Number) regarding lower abdomen pain for last three (3) days and advised the petitioner to undergo abdomen USG and to take rest. ii. It is an undisputed fact that the said letter dated 06.05.2024 written by the petitioner (whereby the petitioner prayed for condonation of his absence on the ground of his illness) was submitted by the petitioner and received by the University for the first time on 06.05.2024; iii. From the aforesaid facts it would be apparent that in respect of the illness about which the Respondents were informed vide letter dated 06.05.2024, the petitioner had not filed an application within three days in accordance with the mandatory provisions of Regulation 3.4.2(a) of the University Regulations. It is also apparent that the petitioner had also not submitted any medical certificates within 15 days of his joining classes in accordance with the mandatory provisions of Regulation 3.4.2(a) of the University Regulations and no reason has been given for the same.; iv. In the aforesaid facts, the petitioner was not entitled to condonation of his period of absence as prayed for in his letter dated 06.05.2024 on, inter alia, the following reasons: a) As per the 31 University records, the petitioner's attendance was 60.98%. Since the petitioner's percentage of attendance was below 65% and was therefore not between 65% to 74%, he did not come within the zone of consideration for having his period of absence condoned in terms of the specific provision of Regulation 3.4.2 of the University Regulations. These regulations stipulate a mandatory attendance limit that must be met before any condonation of attendance is to be allowed. Since the Petitioner's attendance percentage does not meet even the required limit for invoking the University's discretionary powers, the request for condonation was not allowed; b) Without prejudice to what has been stated in the preceding sub-paragraph, and assuming, though not admitting, that the petitioner could still pray for condonation of his absence, his prayer for condonation of his absence could not be and was not acceded to by the University authorities because of the reasons stated in the following sub-paragraphs. i. The petitioner was not entitled to condonation of his absence on the ground of his illness as prayed for by the petitioner in his letter dated 06.05.2024, under any of the relevant clauses of the University Regulations relating to attendance, namely clauses 3.4, 3.4.1, 3.4.2 and 3.4.3 and the sub-clauses thereunder; ii. The petitioner was also not entitled to condonation of his absence on the ground of his illness because he had failed to make any application and submit his medical certificates in such manner and within such time as stipulated in the University Regulation and in clause 3.4.2(a) thereof; iii. Under University regulations, requests for condonation must be made in a timely manner. The Petitioner's unexplained delay of several months without any notice to the 32 University constitutes a clear violation of this requirement. Such a prolonged delay undermines the credibility of the claim and renders the request for condonation untenable; iv. The Petitioner asserts that the primary injury occurred in November 2023, which falls within the 5th Semester. The University states that the Petitioner's medical condition was confined to this period and did not extend throughout the 6th Semester, which is the semester for which condonation is now being sought. In the absence of any medical proof through which it can be said that the petitioner's illness continued till the 6th Semester, the petitioner fails to satisfy the University's criteria for condonation; c) It is a settled position of law 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]. Therefore, contentions made by the Petitioners that there were students who were given the benefit of condonation despite having less than 65% attendance, without any evidence being adduced to the Petition, are liable to be dismissed; d) It is a settled position of law that allegations of Mala Fide are serious in nature, and they essentially raise a 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 33 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, para 83.] Therefore, it is submitted that since no evidence was provided by the Petitioner regarding any student being provided with preferential treatment, their contention should be dismissed; e) Further, it was held in Padam Sen and Anr v State of Uttar Pradesh 1960 SCC OnLine SC 77 para 10 that 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. It was also held that "The courts cannot be used as a tool to create evidence" (Tejo Ratna Kongara v National Housing Bank and Ors. W.P. (C) 4113/2024 and CM Appl. 16783/2024, para 13). Therefore, the Respondents submit that since evidence was not provided by the Petitioners in furtherance of allegations of discrepancies in promotion of students having less than 65% attendance, the same should be dismissed by the Hon'ble Court; f) 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 a degree in such circumstances, would send a bad message to the student community at large and in such cases, sympathy 34 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. Respondents further submit that pursuant to the order 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 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 35 condonation was granted only to students who had more than 65% attendance. No student who had less than 65% attendance was granted condonation of attendance on health grounds. Therefore, there was no arbitrariness or prejudice in the decisions taken by the Respondents. 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: i. 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 Societies/Sports 36 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 act in defiance of the law or to act 37 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; ii. 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; iii. 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; iv. 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 education will be frustrated. The relaxation should be 38 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; v. 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; vi. 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. para 26; d. Vice-Chancellor, M.D. University vs. Jahan Singh, reported in (2007) 5 SCC 77. para 28; vii. 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 unworkable. Since the writ petitioner/appellant did not challenge the vires of the said provision on the 39 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; viii. 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 his aid as law requires student to digest his experience and gradually discover his 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; ix. 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; x. Ld. Single Judge held to have committed a serious error in making an order 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; xi. 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 to establish a legal right. It is further trite that despite an extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction contained in 40 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 Ora... reported in (1993) 4 SCC 401, para 7; xii. 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; xiii. 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; xiv. 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. a. Sadananda Halo v Momtaz Ali Sheikh (2008) 4 SCC 619. para 58; xv. A Court is not expected to indulge in roving enquiry to rule out all possible explanations and alternative scenarios justifying such irregularities. a. West Bengal Board of Primary Education and Anr v Priyanka 41 Naskar and Ors. 2025 SCC OnLine 9448, para 188; xvi. Allegations of Mala Fide are serious in nature and they essentially raise a 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". a. Dhampur Sugar v State of Uttarakhand (2007) 8 SCC 448, para 83; xvii. 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. a. Padam Sen and Anr v State of Uttar Pradesh 1960 SCC OnLine SC 77 para 10; xviii. A Petition can succeed only if a Petition makes out a case and not to give a chance to establish the claim. a. A Hamsaveni v State of TN (1994) 6 SCC 98, Para 5; xix. 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. a. Ratan Chandra Sammanta v UOI 1993 Supp (4) SCC 67; xx. The court cannot be used as a tool to create evidence. a. Tejo Ratna Kongara 42 v National Housing Bank and Ors. W.P. (C) 4113/2024 and CM Appl. 16783/2024, para 13. Respondents submit that the decision in the case of Ananya Bansal vs. Delhi University. LPA 132 of 2025, though has been distinguished by the petitioner in the written notes, it was not relied upon by the respondents. However, since it has been distinguished by the petitioner, I would like to refer to and rely upon para 7 and 8 thereof, wherein while explaining the importance of attendance in a professional course i.e., an L.L.B course, it has been observed that given their own lack of diligence in adhering to the prescribed academic discipline, allowing such a remedy would set a wrong precedent by effectively rewarding non-compliance. It is essential to maintain the integrity of the L.L.B. professional course and to ensure that students who abide by the rules are not prejudiced by a retroactive relaxation of discipline. Further, in para 8 of the said decision, wherein it has been observed that ordinarily, the shortage in attendance ought not to be otherwise condoned for the mere asking, unless some urgent or unavoidable circumstances like medical emergencies etc., intervene, it has also been specifically stated that." There could be exceptions to such rigidity, which in all probability must be prescribed in the rules itself". Thus, in the facts of the given case, where the Rules and Regulations of the University does not provide for any such exception, the petitioner's request for condonation of his absence cannot be acceded to. I emphatically rely upon the following decision which were relied upon by the respondents but omitted to be distinguished in the written notes of arguments filed by the petitioner:- a) State of Maharashtra vs. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale and Ors., reported in 43 (1992) 4 SCC 435, para 12; b) Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs. Ram Lal and Ors., reported in (2005) 2 SCC 638, para 44. Countering the Submissions made by the Petitioner: i. The injury on the basis of which the petitioner claimed condonation happened in the month of November, 2023 (erroneously written as November, 2024 in Sl. No. i under the heading 'submissions) that is during the 5th semester and his attendance in the 5th semester was duly condoned as per the rules and regulations of the University. The petitioner never communicated regarding his inability to attend classes in the 6th semester on account of his such illness and did not pray for condonation in the manner as prescribed under the rules and thus the respondent couldn't have considered condonation of such absence; ii Respondents submit that it is not possible for the lawmakers to envisage each and every circumstance and incorporate the same in the rules and regulations and the University being a creature of the statute cannot transgress the powers entrusted thereupon by acting de hors the laid down rules, only to give benefit to a student considering exceptional circumstances not envisaged in the rules. In such a case, the vires of the rules and regulations have to be challenged, and this having not been done in the writ petition, both the petitioner and the respondents have to abide by the Rules and Regulations in force; iii. Even assuming but not admitting that the petitioner was not able to attend classes during the period January and March 2024, on account of his illness, such illness was not on account of any injury while playing football as claimed and was on account of sprain suffered by the petitioner while climbing the stairs for which necessary treatment was given to the petitioner in the respondent 44 university medical room and thereafter the petitioner never intimated the respondent university about any such illness. Regarding petitioner's submission for compassionate consideration, I refer to and rely upon the decisions as referred to hereinbefore; iv. The petitioner having admittedly attended 60.98% of classes, being 175 classes out of the total number of classes delivered being 287, addition of (12 classes i.e. of 2 days) to his such attendance would not make it above 65% as claimed, and condonation of seven days similarly would not make it above 75% as claimed. Also, sufficient reasons could not be shown for condonation in the 6th semester as in the subsequent medical reports which were submitted by the petitioner, it was mentioned by the concerned doctor that the petitioner was ready for normal activities; v. The petitioner's prayer for condonation could not be acceded to as the petitioner did not come within the zone of consideration for having his period of absence condoned in terms of the specific provision of Regulation 3.4.2 of the University Regulations. Without prejudice, the petitioner did not submit his medical documents within the time and in the manner as prescribed under Regulation 3.4.2. of the University Regulations; vi. The university has preferred an appeal against the direction passed in WPA No. 14385 of 2024 vide MAT 2144 of 2024 which was filed on November 26, 2024 and thus the submission of the petitioner that the directions passed in WPA 14385 of 2024 have been accepted and complied with by the Respondent University and no appeal has been preferred against the said order till date is not a correct submission; vii. The respondent University including the faculty and the mentors thereof, are all bound by the 45 Regulations of the University and have to act within the four corners of the same; viii. The petitioner claimed that due to the prolonged illness, the petitioner could not attend classes of the 6th Semester during the months of January, February and March 2024, however, the petitioner resumed classes regularly in the later parts of March 2024. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner informed the dean, being the respondent no. 3, about his illness for the very first time in the 6th semester only on 06.05.2024 i.e., much after he resumed classes, leave alone the requirement of informing and submitting documents within 3 days and 15 days respectively as per the regulations. Thus, the petitioner's request for condonation could not be acceded to and he was barred from appearing in the 6th semester examination; ix. The Hon'ble Court vide Order dated 19.08.2024, granted liberty to the petitioner to make a representation in this regard before the Vice-Chancellor of the University who in turn was requested to consider such prayer in accordance with law and the Vice-Chancellor vide his Order dated 12.09.2024 gave his decision after considering the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law i.e., the Rules and Regulations of the University. This Hon'ble Court cannot sit in judgement over the said decision. There is no error of law apparent on the face of the record; x. Sufficient reasons could not be shown for condonation in the 6th semester on the plea of prolonged illness and/or absence during the period of recovery post-medical procedures as in the subsequent medical reports which were submitted by the petitioner, it was mentioned by the concerned doctor in a prescription dated 20.01.2024, that the petitioner was ready for normal daily activities. Thus, the petitioner's 46 absence from classes during the period from January 2024 to March 2024 could not be justified; xi. Petitioner was allowed to appear in the 6th semester examinations and take admission in the 7th semester only by virtue of the Court's Order and his attendance in the 7th semester shall be determined considering the facts and circumstances of the case upon the present writ petition being decided by this Hon'ble Court. Distinguishing the decisions relied upon by the Writ Petitioner. i. Pawan Pratap Singh and Ors. vs. Reevan Singh and Ors, reported in (2011) 3 SCC 267. para 55 This case is distinguishable in the facts of the given case, and the petitioner cannot simply choose one paragraph from a decision and cite the same in his favour, and the purport of the entire decision has to be taken into consideration while applying the same. It is the ratio of the judgement which in no way supports the petitioner's contention. This was a case where the court was considering a competing interest which is not the case here; ii. Bamang Nabam vs. Northeastern Hill University, 2025 SCC Online Megh 399, para 1 to 4 and 12 to 18 Even assuming that the aforesaid case applies to the facts of the instant case, the petitioner's request for condonation could not be acceded to since the petitioner could not justify his claim of prolonged illness as in the subsequent medical reports dated January 20, 2024, submitted by the petitioner, the concerned doctor has observed that the petitioner was ready for normal daily activities. Hence, the petitioner's absence from classes during the 6th semester from January to March 2024 is not justified. Further a judgement of the Meghalaya High Court cannot be followed on the face of the judgements of the Supreme Court and this Hon'ble Court, more so 47 when the said judgement was not considered in this judgement; iii. D. Navinchandra & Co. vs. Union of India, reported in 1989 SCC Online Bom 485. para 4 and 5 This argument cannot be accepted as the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that 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; iv. Aditya Chatterjee vs. St. Xavier's University, WPA 14385 of 2024 (Judgement and Order dated 20th May 2024) This order is of no avail as the university has preferred an appeal against the direction passed in WPA No. 14385 of 2024 vide MAT 2144 of 2024 which was filed on November 26, 2024 and thus the submission of the petitioner that the directions passed in WPA 14385 of 2024 have been accepted and complied with by the Respondent University and no appeal has been preferred against the said order till date is not a correct submission; v. S Sakthivel vs. Registrar, SRM University and Ors. reported in 2024 SCC Online Mad 6028, Para 4, 6 and 7 In this case even though the lack of attendance of the student was condoned by the Hon'ble Madras High Court for one time considering the plight of the student, the respondents have relied upon and referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court, which states that Rules cannot be ignored and sympathy and/or compassion has no role to play; vi. K Mahalakshmi vs. The Director, The School of Excellence in Law, The Tamil Nadu Ambedkar Law University, reported in 2014 SCC Online Mad 6717 This decision is distinguishable in the facts of the given case and the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court as referred to and 48 relied upon by the respondents would have a binding effect over this decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court; vii. Ankita Meena vs. University of Delhi, reported in (2021) 16 SCC 491, para 4, 8, 10 and 11 In this case, there was a strike by the Delhi University Teachers Association which was one of the reasons for not conducting the minimum classes. There is no determination that if one is pregnant that would be a ground for condoning delay; viii. Sudipta Chowdhury & Others vs. West Bengal State Council of Technical Education, reported in 2011 SCC Online 1349. In this case, the Hon'ble Court noted that this order will not be treated as a precedence. The judgment was delivered on the basis of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, and the College was directed to conduct special classes. The Respondents submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that 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; ix. Shesandu Sekhar Malick vs. West Bengal State Council of Technical Education, reported in 2011 SCC Online Cal 1350. In this case also, the Hon'ble Court noted that this order will not be treated as a precedence. The judgment was delivered on the basis of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, and the College was directed to conduct special classes. The Respondents submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that 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. In view of the above submission, it is repeated that the Writ Petition should be dismissed with cost. The 49 Respondent University relied upon certain additional decisions in its Written Notes. Pursuant to the leave granted by this Hon'ble Court on 5th May 2026 to deal with such additional decisions, the instant Supplementary Written Notes is being filed. Distinguishing the additional Judgments Cited by the Respondent University in their Written Notes. i. Sved Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan, AIR 1964 SC 477, Para 7, 8-In the cited case, the scope of consideration was the limits of the jurisdiction of the High Court in issuing a writ of certiorari while dealing with orders passed by the appropriate authorities granting or refusing to grant permits under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Para 1). The cited case discussed the self-imposed limitation of Writ Courts to re-appreciate the adequacy of evidence led before the Tribunal/Court, the order of which is challenged in a writ proceeding. In that context, it is said that while issuing a writ of certiorari, the Writ Court will not act as a court of Appeal as explained in para 23 of the decision in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Chitra Venkata Rao reported in (1975) 2 SCC 557. However, the impugned Order in the instant case is an administrative order, and the impugned decision of the Respondent University not to condone the attendance of the Writ Petitioner despite being provided with sufficient and cogent reasons to do so is an administrative decision which cannot be equated with an Order passed by a Trial Court or a Tribunal. Therefore, the ratio of the cited case is not applicable to the facts of the instant case; ii. N.K. Singh v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 98, Para 5-In the cited case, the Petitioner challenged his transfer from CBI to BSF by claiming it to be prejudicial to public interest, being made for the ulterior purpose of 50 scuttling the sensitive investigation of which the appellant was in charge in the CBI. He alleged malafide in his transfer. (Para 7, 79). However, there was no allegation with regard to the competence of the Petitioner's successor, and hence the plea of prevailing public interest and malafide was not entertained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (Para 10, 18, 19). In the present case, the Petitioner has alleged selective imposition of attendance regulation by the Respondent University, and the same has been proved from the records disclosed by the Respondent University during the course of the hearing. Therefore, the cited case is not applicable to the facts of the present case in the absence of any allegation of prevailing public interest and in view of the fact that the selective imposition of the attendance regulation has already been proved from the records produced by the Respondent University; iii. Sadananda Halo v. Momtaz Ali Sheikh, (2008) 4 SCC 619, Para 58-The cited case pertains to a selection process wherein unsuccessful candidates, inter alia, challenged the marks awarded by the selection committee to upset the result of the selection process. In this conspectus, it was held that while testing the fairness of the selection process wherein thousands of candidates were involved, the High Court should have been slow in relying upon such microscopic findings. It was not for the High Court to place itself into a position of a fact-finding commission, that too, more particularly at the instance of those petitioners who were unsuccessful candidates (Para 58). In the present case, the Petitioner has alleged selective imposition of attendance regulation by the Respondent University, and the same has been proved from the records disclosed by the Respondent University during the course of the 51 hearing. Therefore, the cited case is not applicable to the facts of the present case; iv. Dhampur Sugar (Kashipur) Ltd. v. State of Uttaranchal, (2007) 8 SCC 418, Para 83 The cited case was filed by a company which owned a sugar factory, thereby challenging the modification of an earlier sugar policy of State of Uttaranchal vide which the Government was empowered to relax the limitation laid down in Para (ka) of earlier policy, which prohibited grant of license of any other factory in the reserved area of an existing sugar mill. (Para 4, 5). It was alleged that no licence could have been granted to Respondent 4 IGL and the said action was mala fide and had been taken by the authorities in colourable exercise of power with a view to extend undeserving benefit to IGL (Para 10, 80). In the present case, the Petitioner has alleged selective imposition of attendance regulation by the Respondent University, and the same has been proved from the records disclosed by the Respondent University during the course of the hearing. Therefore, the allegations of malafide stand proven, and hence the cited case does not apply to the facts of the present case. West Bengal Board of Primary Education and Another v. Priyanka Naskar and Others, (2025) SCC OnLine Cal 9448, Para 188 The cited case pertains to a selection process wherein unsuccessful candidates, inter alia, pointed out many alleged irregularities, challenged different aspects of the selection process to upset the result of the selection process and appointment made therefore. In this conspectus, it was held that the Court is not expected to indulge in roving enquiry to rule out all possible explanations and alternative scenarios justifying such irregularities. (Para 188). In the present case, the Petitioner has alleged selective imposition 52 of attendance regulation by the Respondent University, and the same has been proved from the records disclosed by the Respondent University during the course of the hearing. Therefore, the cited case is not applicable to the facts of the present case; vi. Padam Sen v. State of U.P., 1960 SCC OnLine SC 77, Para 10-In the cited case, the Petitioner challenged his conviction under Section 165A of the Indian Penal Code (Para 1). It is a settled law that an accused is entitled to all kinds of technical defences in criminal jurisprudence. The Petitioner in the cited case contended that the appointment of a Commissioner by the Trial Court was null and void as the Additional Munsif had no power to appoint a Commissioner for the purpose of seizing the account books of the plaintiff on an application by the defendants, the power of a civil court to issue a commission being limited by the provisions of Section 75 and Order XXVI of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the Court having no inherent power to appoint a Commissioner for any purpose not mentioned in Section 75 and Order XXVI of the Code (Para 5). This contention was admitted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and consequently, the conviction of the Petitioner was set aside. The power of the Writ Court is not bound by any statutory limitation, and in this case, the Respondent University has produced the records of attendance without any demur. The power of the writ court is wide enough to reach and redress injustice wherever it is found. Therefore, the ratio of the cited case is not applicable to the facts of the present case; vii. Tejo Ratna Kongara v. National Housing Bank, W.P. (C) No. 4113 of 2024 = 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2715, Para 13 In the cited case, the Petitioner was in litigation with IBREL and he 53 sought to collect information and documents by filing a petition before the National Housing Bank, so as to use the same to file intervention application before NCLAT, New Delhi in the appeal filed by IBREL (Para 10). In this conspectus, it was held that a writ jurisdiction cannot be used by a party to collect evidence and documents against another party, against whom the petitioner has pending disputes. Writ jurisdiction is meant to safeguard the constitutional, legal and vested rights of a party. However, in the present case, the Petitioner has been deprived by the Respondent University of appearing for his examinations, and he is seeking to protect his own legal and constitutional rights in the Writ Petition. He is not seeking to fish for evidence to use against the Respondent University in any other litigation. The Respondent University has already disclosed the records before this Hon'ble Court without any demur whatsoever. The Petitioner has challenged the selective imposition of attendance regulation by the Respondent University, and the same has been proved from the records disclosed by the Respondent University during the course of the hearing. Thus, the facts of the cited case are not applicable in the instant case; viii. Shubham Pal v. Staff Selection Commission, SLP(C) No. 21999 of 2024-Order dated 3rd February 2026 (not cited but referred in a cited judgment) The cited case pertains to disputes raised in the answer to certain questions by the candidates of the Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2023 (Para 2, 3, 4, 5). The ratio laid down in the cited case is that the Court should presume the correctness of the answer key and proceed on that assumption, and in the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate. 54 In these types of cases, sympathy or compassion has no role to play. Courts should be very loath to direct or not direct re-evaluation of an answer sheet (Para 12, 15). The Petitioner do not have any quarrel with the said ratio. However, the said ratio is not applicable in the instant case, as the subject matter as well as the issues raised for consideration in the instant case are completely different from those of the cited case; ix. Harish v. Union of India WPA 24155 of 2025, Para 32 In the cited case, the Petitioner did not even appear for his examinations of the first year on his own accord and without any bar from the Respondent Institute (Para 8). The University, in fact, permitted the Petitioner to appear for a makeup examination after condoning his shortage of attendance on medical grounds (Para 12). The Petitioner performed poorly in his examinations [Para 12(iii)), which was the principal reason for the Institute to recommend him to repeat an entire year [Para 12(v), 19, 25(iv)]. Petitioner accepted such a decision of the Institute, and he completed the registration for the 62nd Batch [Para 12(vi)-12(vii), 25(viii)], but did not attend the classes in the first year of the 62nd Batch and instead filed a Writ Petition [Para 13, 25(ix)]. The cited case relies upon the decision cited in the case of Shubham Pal (supra) on the issue of misplaced sympathy, which was rendered in the case of a selection process, and on the issue of re-adjudicating the propriety of answers given by the expert body (Para 23). Unlike the present case, the student in the cited case did not even appear for his examinations, and he was allowed to appear for a makeup examination by the Institute without any judicial interference. However, since he did not perform well in his examination, he was not promoted. 55 However, in the instant case, the Petitioner has not been allowed to appear for his examination by the Respondent University, and there is no issue in connection with the academic performance of the Petitioner. Therefore, the cited case is not applicable to the facts of the present case. State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale, (1992) 4 SCC 435, Para 12-In the cited case, the students who were admitted in an unauthorised private B.Ed. College, which was established without complying with the statutory requirements, was ill-equipped to impart education, and admitted the students despite warnings by the State Government and, in connivance at lower levels, approached under Article 226 with a prayer to allow them to appear in the examinations (Para 3 and 5). It was in this context that the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the High Court not to indulge such kind of students in Writ Jurisdiction (Para 12). However, in the instant case, there is no lack of infrastructure in the Respondent University. The instant case is an exceptional case as the Petitioner suffered from severe illness and its aftereffects, which genuinely prevented the Petitioner from attending classes. So, the Petitioner's case is extraordinary, which is beyond the purview of the Rules; xi. Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Ram Lal, (2005) 2 SCC 638, Para 44-The cited case pertained to an industrial dispute wherein the retrenched employees of a predecessor company, without challenging the retrenchment order and after receiving compensation, filed a petition against the successor company seeking re-employment in the successor company (Para 7). In this context, it was held that the consequences other than payment of compensation envisaged in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act do not flow in case 56 of transfer or closure of the undertaking (Para 33) and the statutory scheme does not envisage that even in the case of closure of an undertaking, a workman who although had not been retrenched would be re-employed in case of revival thereof by another company. (Para 38). It was thus held that while construing a statute, "sympathy" has no role to play (Para 44). The same has been distinguished in para 16 of the decision rendered in Armed Forces Ex Officers Multi Services Co-operative Society Limited v. Rashtriya Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC) reported in (2022) 9 SCC 586. The instant case is not covered under the attendance regulation of the University. The instant case is an exceptional case as the Petitioner suffered from severe illness and its after effects, which genuinely prevented the Petitioner from attending classes. So, the Petitioner's case is extraordinary, which is beyond the purview of the Rules; xii. Ratan Chandra Samanta v. Union of India, 1993 Supp (4) SCC 67, Para 6. In the cited case, the casual labourers of South Eastern Railway, alleged to have been appointed between 1964-69 and retrenched between 1975-78 approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court seeking a direction upon Union of India to include their names in the live casual labourer register after due screening and to give them re-employment according to their seniority (Para 1). The petitioners did not take any step to enforce their claim before the Railways except sending a vague representation, nor did they even care to produce any material to satisfy this Court that they were covered in the scheme framed by the Railways. The Petitioners approached the Hon'ble Court almost 15 years after their retrenchment, and hence it was held that the Writ cannot be issued for the 57 scope of roving enquiry (Para 6). However, the ratio of the cited case is not applicable in the present case, as in the present case, the Petitioner has furnished all relevant details and has approached this Hon'ble Court immediately after being debarred from appearing in his examinations. 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 do no 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 58 been unduly favoured in this regard, there is no specific allegation leveled in this regard or example given. 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, 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. 59 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, 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. 60 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 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 61 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 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% 62 (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 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 a serious abdominal injury sustained by the petitioner during the Annual Xavier’s Inter- Department football tournament 2023, ruptured renal cyst causing internal bleeding, Angio-embolization and ICU admission, hematoma at the affected region and its after effects did not move the University to grant exemption on medical ground. He was medically advised to take prolonged time for 63 recovery, restricted movement and repeated blood transfusions and continuing medical treatment during the Sixth Semester to cure the persisting hematoma. Additionally, the petitioner's father also suffered from acute hepatitis, which prevented the petitioner from attending his classes. So, the petitioner is aggrieved by the debarment from appearing in the Sixth Semester examination; the refusal to condone the petitioner’s shortage of attendance on account of his prolonged medical condition; the alleged arbitrary and discriminatory application of the University’s attendance and condonation Regulations; the rejection of the petitioner’s comprehensive representation dated 24th August 2024 by reasoned order dated 12th September 2024; and failure to regularise the petitioner’s subsequent semesters, accept his fees and evaluate his examination scripts, despite interim orders permitting him to attend classes and appear in the Seventh and Eighth Semester examinations. 17. According to the respondent University, the petitioner’s 6th Semester attendance was 60.98%, below the 65% threshold prescribed under Regulation 3.4.2 for condonation. The illness was reported only on 6th May 2024, without a leave application within three days of the absence or medical certificates within 15 days of resuming classes, as required under Regulation 3.4.2(a). The illness was also treated as arising from an injury suffered in November 2023 during the preceding 5th Semester, for which condonation had already been granted. Further, the medical condition relied upon was not accepted as justification for January to March 2024 absence, in view of a prescription indicating fitness for normal daily activities. 64 18. 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. 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. 65 19. First, it is an admitted position that the petitioner suffered a severe abdominal injury while playing inter-department football in 2023. Admittedly, the respondent University considered this as a good ground for granting exemption as regards attendance of classes for the year. Secondly, it is not for the respondent authorities to arrogate to themselves the authority of a medical expert to refute that or question whether the after effects of such grievous injury could be felt and would be required to be dealt with in the following year, especially in view of the medical reports available. Rather, it would be inhumane not to treat this as an exceptional case where the University should consider itself duty-bound to extend all reasonable assistance and to allow the required exemption from attendance of classes. Considering the serious kind of injury inflicted on the petitioner and the after effects he had to cope with over a period of time, it is quite commendable that he could attend as much as 60.98% of the classes. The person who suffers such injury would only know the pain and what he had to go through. Thus, it would be quite frivolous not to allow such exemption on technical grounds of alleged delay in making application. 20. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to allow the petitioner’s application. 21. In view of the fact that during the pendency of the application, without prejudice and without creating any equity in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner had been allowed to sit in examinations and move to the subsequent semester / s, the present application is disposed of with the following directions - 66 (i) The petitioner shall not be debarred from clearing the semester in question and moving to the next on the ground of inadequate attendance; (ii) All his examination results for the said and / or the following semesters, which had been kept unpublished, shall be published at the earliest; (iii) For such purpose, if the examination papers have not been evaluated till now, shall be promptly evaluated; (iv) 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. 22. Urgent certified copy of the order shall be provided to the parties upon compliance of usual formalities. (Jay Sengupta, J.) Later: Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent University prays for stay of the order. The prayer is considered and is rejected. (Jay Sengupta, J.)