‘Step-motherly’ treatment to the student is unjust; HC asks NLSIU to promote student denied promotion due to short attendance
The Karnataka HC in the matter between Dayan Warsi and VC, Registrar NLSIU, allowed a writ petition moved by a student of NLSIU, Bangalore, and asked the university to promote the student who was denied the same due to short attendance. The HC was dejected over the ‘step-motherly’ treatment made out against the petitioner
Petitioner, the student of NLSIU, Banglore approached the HC to seek relief against the decision of the university not to promote the student to 4th year due to shortage of attendance.
Contention of University
The VC and University through its counsel stated that the Academic Examination Regulations(AER) do not admit leniency and such matters should be left to the university alone.
Contention of Student
It was contended that since the doctor could not sign the medical application six days before the cutoff date the university rendered the contentions of the student of no value.
Interference by HCThe HC mainly analyzed three things:-
The Court stated that AER 2009 would be applicable in the present case and not AER 2020- AER 2020 bars promotion since the student does not meet the requirement however AER 2020, the court said, would not be applied retrospectively and that AER 2009 would be applicable in the present case.
The Counsel for respondents stated that even if AER 2009 would be applied even then the student is not eligible since he had around 67%.
The court took into account that in the past as well such leniency has been provided.
Observation of Court
The Court perused the records and made a statement that the law speaks through language and not music and the regulations made by such universities are made with the intent to get some discretion by the nebulous wording. The Court stated that the university has swayed away from the Rule of Textualism, to prejudice of student by using the word will and shall.
Further, the university has on multiple occasions has promoted students and such ‘step-motherly’ treatment to the petitioner is uncalled for. The court also stated that the petitioner was not a habitual offender and missing the deadline by just six days should not affect the future of the student. The Court thus asked the university to promote the student.
LEXIS AND COMPANY
"ADVOCATES AND LEGAL CONSULTANTS"
We are India’s Leading Law Firm
“The firm has always strives to create and implement innovative and effective methods of providing cost-effective, quality representation and services for our clients and will continue to meet and exceed the expectations of our valued clients.”
– DR ANUPAM KUMAR MISHRA (ADVOCATE, FOUNDER-LEXIS AND COMPANY).
Get in Touch
LEXIS AND COMPANY.
C/O: DR ANUPAM KUMAR MISHRA.
OFFICE: A1B/26, JANAKPURI, GROUND FLOOR,
NEW DELHI,, DELHI, 110058.