Allowed¶10

Parvez Ahmad Khan v. Mahmoodabad Law College Thru. Prin. and Ors.

Allahabad HC5 Jan 2026WRIC/10517/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

attendance certificate; LL.B. three-year course session 2010-2013; Mahmoodabad Law College; Chattrapati Sahuji Maharaj University Kanpur; University of Lucknow affiliation; Bar Council of West Bengal enrolment; Bar Council of India; weeded out attendance records; five-year record retention bye laws; Rule 6 attendance 75%; legal presumption of lawful university action; mandamus; writ petition allowed; WRIT - C No. 10517 of 2025; Subhash Vidyarthi J.; Lucknow Bench

What did the court decide?

Direction to opposite party no. 1-Mahmoodabad Law College through its Principal to issue a certificate certifying that the petitioner attended more than 75% classes in each of the six semesters of the LL.B. three year program during session 2010-2013, within a period of three days. ¶10

Parvez Ahmad Khan vs Mahmoodabad Law College Thru. Prin. and Ors. — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether the opposite party no. 1-college is obliged to issue an attendance certificate certifying that the petitioner attended the requisite minimum number of classes for the LL.B. course (session 2010 to 2013) for enrolment as an advocate, even though its attendance records have been weeded out.

¶3

Court's answer

There is a legal presumption that the University acted in a legal manner and permitted the petitioner to appear in the LL.B. examinations only after being satisfied that he had attended the requisite minimum number of classes, i.e. 75%.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

Even if the college has weeded out the attendance record because of lapse of time, it should issue a certificate certifying that the petitioner attended a minimum of 75% of classes during the LL.B. programme, as he was permitted to appear in and has been declared to have passed the examination.

¶8

Key takeaways

The opposite party no. 1-Mahmoodabad Law College through its Principal is directed to issue a certificate certifying that the petitioner attended more than 75% classes in each of the six semesters of the LL.B. three year program during session 2010-2013, within three days.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Subhash Vidyarthi, J., allowed a writ petition by an LL.B. graduate (session 2010-2013) of Mahmoodabad Law College seeking an attendance certificate needed for enrolment as an advocate with the Bar Council of West Bengal. The college had refused, stating that under its bye laws attendance records are kept for only five years and the record stood weeded out. Holding that there is a legal presumption that the affiliating University (Chattrapati Sahuji Maharaj University, Kanpur) permitted the petitioner to appear in the examinations only after satisfying itself of the requisite 75% attendance, the Court directed the Principal to certify attendance of more than 75% classes in each of the six semesters within three days. (Decided March 10, 2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 10517 of 2025

¶3

Parvez Ahmad Khan

¶4

	Versus	.....Peti	tioner(s)
Mahmoodabad Law College And Ors.	Thru. Prin.	.....Res	pondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: In Person
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Shailesh Amrendra Kumar Bag	Kumar Kumar, hel	Pathak, Neeraj

¶5

Court No. - 17

¶6

HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

¶7

Heard Sri Parvez Ahmad Khan, the petitioner in person, Sri Neeraj Kumar Baghel, the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1-Mahmoodabad Law College, Mahmoodabad, Sitapur, U.P., Sri Savitra Vardhan Singh, the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2-Chattrapati Sahuji Maharaj University and Sri Shailesh Pathak, the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 4-Bar Council of India.

¶8

Keeping in view the nature of relief sought and order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the ,opposite party no. 3-Bar Council of West Bengal is dispensed with.

¶9

By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has sought issuance of a direction to the opposite party no. 1- Mahmoodabad Law College, to issue an attendance certificate to the petitioner certifying that the petitioner has attended the requisite minimum number of classes while pursuing LL.B. Course for the session 2010 to 2013 (which has completed in the year 2015).

¶10

WRIC No. 10517 of 2025

¶11

¶12

Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the petitioner has passed three years LL.B. Program after studying in Mahmoodabad Law College which was affiliated to Chattrapati Sahuji Maharaj University, Kanpur. The college is now affiliated to the University of Lucknow. The petitioner has passed the examinations for all the six semesters and mark sheets issued to the petitioner are filed with this petition. Thereafter, the petitioner applied to the Bar Council of West Bengal for being enrolled as an advocate. The Bar Council required the petitioner to furnish a certificate of attendance issued by the institution from which the petitioner has studied. The college has declined the petitioner's request for issuance of attendance certificate on the ground that as per the bye laws, the college maintains the record of attendance for a period of five years only and now the record has been weeded out.

¶13

A copy of the general rules for LL.B. (three years) (six semester degree course) (session 2010-11 and onwards) issued by Chattrapati Sahuji Maharaj University, Kanpur has been annexed with the petition. Rule 6 deals with attendance and it reads as follows:-

¶14

" Attendance

¶15

No student of LL.B. program shall be allowed to take the end semester examination if the student concerned has not attended minimum of 75% of the classes held as also moot court room exercise, tutorials and practicals conducted in the subjects taken together.

¶16

Provided that if a student for any exceptional reasons fails to 75% class held in any subject, the principal of the college may allow the student after approval from the Vice Chancellor of CSJM University, Kanpur, if he/she attended at least 66% of the classes held."

¶17

WRIC No. 10517 of 2025

¶18

¶19

The petitioner has submitted that he had attended more than 75% of the classes and, therefore, the University had permitted him to appear in the examinations. The petitioner has further submitted that he had neither sought any relaxation from attendance under the proviso appended to Rule 6 nor was any such relaxation granted as the petitioner having attended more than 75% classes, there was no need for him to seek any relaxation.

¶20

The university has permitted the petitioner to appear in LL.B. examinations and there is a legal presumption that the university has acted in a legal manner and has permitted the petitioner to appear in the examination only after being satisfied that the petitioner has attended the requisite minimum number of classes i.e. 75%.

¶21

In these circumstances, even if the college has weeded out the record regarding to the attendance because of lapse of time, the college should issue a certificate to the petitioner certifying that the petitioner has attended a minimum of 75% of classes during LL.B. Program as he has been permitted to appear in the examination and has been declared to have passed the examination.

¶22

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed .

¶23

The opposite party no. 1-Mahmoodabad Law College through its Principal, Mahmoodabad, Sitapur is directed to issue a certificate to the petitioner certifying that the petitioner has attended more than 75% classes in each of the six semesters of LL.B. three year program during the session 2010-2013, within a period of three days from today.

¶24

March 10, 2026

¶25

Pradeep/-

¶26

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶27

Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Parvez Ahmad Khan v. Mahmoodabad Law College Thru. Prin. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parvez Ahmad Khan v. Mahmoodabad Law College Thru. Prin. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

state of U.P. through collector ayodhya vs Samarath Narayan and 3 others

state of U.P. through collector ayodhya Vs Samarath Narayan and 3 others

Lko. Model College of Pharmacy Thru. Its Director Shri Shashank Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tech. Edu. Deptt. Lko. and Another

Vinay Kumar Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 9 Others

Ramesh Chauhan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Jai Ram vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others