The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) has dismissed a review application filed by an LL.M. student of the Maharashtra National Law University, Aurangabad seeking reconsideration of an earlier judgment that upheld the University’s decision to bar her from appearing in Semester-II examinations due to shortage of attendance.
A Division Bench of Justice Ajit B. Kadethankar and Justice Vibha Kankanwadi held that the applicant failed to establish any ground warranting review under Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court noted that the review petition essentially sought a re-hearing of issues already decided in the writ proceedings and amounted to an appeal in the guise of a review.
The student had contended that the University had incorrectly calculated her attendance, discriminated against her by allegedly granting attendance benefits to other students, failed to consider her medical circumstances, and improperly rejected her grievance. She also sought a direction for a special examination after the semester examinations had already concluded.
Rejecting these contentions, the Court observed that even on the applicant’s own case, her attendance could not exceed about 51%, far below both the mandatory 75% attendance requirement and the 67% threshold prescribed by the University’s policy for considering attendance relaxation on medical grounds.
The Bench further found that several allegations made in the review application were unsupported by evidence. The Court criticised the applicant for making what it described as ‘reckless and irresponsible’ allegations against the University, its faculty members, the Grievance Redressal Committee, and even a fellow student. The Court also noted that the applicant attempted to introduce new medical documents and factual assertions that were never raised during the original writ proceedings.
Also Read AI Law Firm Secures Court Victory in England in Reported First for AI-Led Legal Work
Expressing concern over the conduct of a law graduate pursuing postgraduation, the Court remarked that proceedings before courts must be pursued bona fide and not through unsubstantiated allegations. While observing that the case warranted imposition of heavy costs, the Bench refrained from doing so considering that the applicant was still a student.
The review application was accordingly dismissed, and the Registry was directed to mask the name of the student’s batchmate referred to in the pleadings to protect his privacy.
