S.Nandini vs Nalsar University Of Law

Heard Ms. Pushpinder Kaur, learned counsel representing Sri Shaik Karimulla, learned counsel for the appellant; Sri A.Kranti Kumar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-University and perused the record.

This writ appeal is preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 08.07.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.21904 of 2026. By the said order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein, who was the petitioner before the learned Single Judge, seeking a direction to the respondent-University to issue hall ticket and permit her to appear for the First Year MBA Semester-II Supplementary Examinations, which were scheduled from 06.07.2026 to 13.07.2026.

The appellant, S. Nandini, is a student pursuing the Two-Year Master of Business Administration (MBA) Programme in the Department of Management Studies (DoMS), NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, with Admission/Roll No.2025-2MBA-076. Petitioner was admitted to the 2025-2027 batch. The appellant successfully completed her First Semester by clearing all the subjects in her first attempt and secured a CGPA of 7.60.

During the Second Semester, particularly in February and March, 2026, the appellant suffered serious medical ailments, including viral pneumonia, Lower Respiratory Tract Infection (LRTI), severe dehydration, persistent fever, productive cough, chills, rigors and repeated vomiting, and underwent treatment at the NALSAR Health Centre and Princess Durru Shehvar Children's and General Hospital, Hyderabad, and was advised complete bed rest for nearly twenty days. Owing to the said illness, appellant could not regularly attend classes during the relevant period.

Consequently, the appellant fell short of the prescribed attendance requirement of 75% under the Manual of Policies for MBA (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). According to the appellant, her attendance was 56%, and has fell short of the minimum 67% attendance prescribed under Rule 4.6 for a student granted medical leave.

On account of the shortage of attendance, the appellant was not permitted to appear for the Second Semester End-Term Examinations conducted in April, 2026.

On 06.07.2026, the appellant's parents submitted a representation to the Vice-Chancellor of the respondent-University, seeking condonation of the attendance shortage and permission for the appellant to appear in the Supplementary Examinations scheduled from 06.07.2026 to 13.07.2026. The representation also contained an unconditional apology for not having obtained prior permission for medical leave in accordance with the prescribed procedure.

The respondent-University, however, declined to issue the hall ticket to the appellant on the ground that she had been detained from appearing in the End-Term Examinations due to shortage of attendance and had backlogs in more than four subjects. Relying upon Rule 5.3.5 of the Rules, the respondent-University treated her as ineligible to appear in the Supplementary/Repeat Examinations and required her to re-register for the First Year MBA Programme.

Aggrieved by the said action, the appellant approached this Court by filing W.P.No.21904 of 2026, seeking a direction to the respondent-University to issue her hall ticket and permit her to appear in the remaining Supplementary Examinations scheduled on 09.07.2026, 10.07.2026 and 13.07.2026.

The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, dismissed the writ petition by order dated 08.07.2026, holding, inter alia, that the mandatory attendance requirements under Rules 4.6 and 5.3.5 disentitled the appellant from appearing in the Supplementary Examinations.

Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has preferred the present Writ Appeal.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, assailed the impugned order and has advanced the following submissions:

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent advanced the following submissions:

We have taken note of the respective contentions urged and perused the material on record.

Before proceeding with the analysis, it would be apposite to extract the relevant Rules governing the issue arising for consideration in the present appeal;

In the present case, it is an admitted position that the appellant was not permitted to appear for the II Semester End-Term Examinations conducted in April, 2026, on account of shortage of attendance. While the appellant claims her attendance to be 56%, the respondent-University contends that it was 52%. Even if the higher figure of 56% is accepted, the appellant still falls short of the minimum 67% attendance prescribed under Rule 4.6 for a student granted medical leave. The Rule is clear that even a student granted medical leave may be permitted to appear for the End-Term Examination only upon securing a minimum of 67% attendance. The appellant, having failed to satisfy even this relaxed threshold, was therefore not eligible to appear for the End-Term Examinations under the Rules.

A perusal of the aforesaid Rule 5.3.5 of the Rules shows that the Rule categorically provides that a student who is not permitted to take the End-Term Examination on account of shortage of attendance ‘will not be allowed for repeat examination’ and, in such a case, is required to re-register for the course. The language of the Rule is clear and leaves no discretion to the respondent-University to permit a student detained on account of shortage of attendance to appear in the Supplementary/Repeat Examination. The learned Single Judge, therefore, correctly treated the said provision as mandatory and declined to direct the University to act contrary to the express terms of the Rules.

Further, Rule 4.8.7 of the Rules provides that post facto medical certificates shall not ordinarily be considered. The appellant's parents themselves, in their representation dated 06.07.2026, tendered an unconditional apology for not having obtained prior permission for medical leave in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The appellant contends that Rule 4.8.7 must be harmoniously construed with Rules 4.4, 4.6, 4.8.2 and 4.8.3, which recognise medical leave and contemplate consideration of genuine medical cases. Even assuming that the said provisions confer some discretion upon the competent academic authorities, such discretion cannot be claimed by the appellant as a matter of right. The Rules vest the discretion in the competent academic authorities, and this Court, in exercise of judicial review, would ordinarily be slow to substitute its own view for that of the academic authority, particularly in the absence of any demonstrated arbitrariness, mala fides or violation of the governing Rules.

It is pertinent to note that the appellant was detained from appearing in the End-Term Examinations conducted in April, 2026, on account of shortage of attendance. However, the appellant did not challenge the said decision at the relevant point of time. Instead, appellant approached this Court only after commencement of the Supplementary Examinations. If the appellant genuinely believed that her medical condition warranted relaxation of the attendance requirement, nothing prevented her from approaching the competent authorities or the appropriate forum when she was not allowed to take the End-Term Examinations in April, 2026. The appellant approached the writ Court belatedly before the commencement of the Supplementary Examinations. The fact remains that despite knowing that appellant would have to repeat the First Year MBA Programme, she did not challenge the decision until after the Supplementary Examinations had commenced. Appellant's silence at the relevant time indicates that she may have accepted the decision at that juncture.

The appellant's contention that the respondent-University created a legitimate expectation in her favour by permitting her to remit the Second Year tuition fee and by permitting her to undertake the mandatory internship, cannot be accepted, for the following reasons:

The reliance placed upon the Doctrine of Proportionality to contend that requiring appellant to repeat the entire First Year MBA Programme is disproportionate to the shortage of attendance was occasioned by genuine medical circumstances, does not merit consideration. While proportionality is a facet of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, its application must be considered in the context of the nature of the decision under challenge.

In Om Kumar (supra 2), the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the applicability of the Doctrine of Proportionality to administrative action. However, in matters concerning academic standards, attendance requirements and eligibility for examinations, the Court ordinarily accords due deference to the regulations framed by the academic institution, unless their application is shown to be arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide or contrary to the governing Rules. In the present case, the attendance requirements under the Rules are uniformly applicable to all students. The consequence prescribed under Rule 5.3.5 equally applies to every student detained from appearing in the End-Term Examination on account of shortage of attendance. Therefore, the appellant cannot seek an exception from the prescribed consequences, merely on the ground of hardship or sympathy.

The appellant's reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.Nos.657 and 661 of 2023 is misplaced. In that case, the direction to promote the student to Class-IV was issued in the peculiar facts of the case and on the basis of a specific concession made by the learned counsel appearing for the School, with the Division Bench expressly clarifying that the direction shall not be treated as a precedent. Further, the factual circumstances were entirely different, as the student had been unable to attend online classes during the COVID-19 pandemic due to his father's inability to pay the school fee. However, in the present case, the issue concerns the mandatory attendance and examination requirements governing the MBA Programme, and there is no concession by the respondent-University, which has consistently opposed the appellant's request and relied upon Rule 5.3.5. Therefore, the said decision has no application to the facts of the present case.

It is well settled that in matters concerning academic standards, eligibility and examination regulations, the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited. The Courts ordinarily do not interfere with academic decisions or substitute their own view for that of the academic authorities, unless the decision is shown to be arbitrary, mala fide, discriminatory or contrary to the governing Rules. In Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P.^{88.(2018) 2 SCC 357}, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasised that academic matters are best left to experts and that judicial interference is warranted only in rare and exceptional cases where a material error is clearly established.

It is to be noted that though the appellant suffered from a genuine medical condition during February and March, 2026, the Rules of the respondent-University prescribe a minimum attendance requirement even for students granted medical leave. The appellant's attendance of 56% falls short of even the relaxed threshold of 67%. The Rules, as noted above, also require medical leave to be availed in accordance with the prescribed procedure, and Rule 4.8.7 provides that post-facto medical certificates shall not ordinarily be considered. In the present case, the appellant admittedly did not obtain prior permission for medical leave. Thus, the respondent-University was justified in not treating the appellant as eligible to appear in the End-Term Examinations on the basis of the post-facto medical certificates.

The learned Single Judge considered the appellant's submissions and correctly applied the governing Rules and has also rightly noted the delay in challenging appellant's detention and held that sympathy or equitable considerations cannot override the mandatory academic Rules. This Court is in agreement with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge and finds no error warranting interference in the present appeal.

For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the appellant, having secured only 56% attendance, did not satisfy the minimum 67% attendance requirement under Rule 4.6 and, having been detained from the End-Term Examinations on account of shortage of attendance, was ineligible to appear in the Supplementary Examinations under Rule 5.3.5. Appellant's failure to challenge the detention at the relevant stage, coupled with the absence of any valid basis for invoking legitimate expectation or proportionality to override the governing Rules, disentitles her to the relief sought. The learned Single Judge rightly declined interference, and we find no error warranting appellate interference.

Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. The order dated 08.07.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.21904 of 2026 is hereby affirmed.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed. No costs.