JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition seeking a direction upon the respondents to conduct the examination of the petitioner for LLM course 3rd Semester separately at an earliest possible date and allow her to write her exams. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that she passed her LLB degree in the year 2017 and thereafter she got admitted in the Department of Law, Central University, Kashmir, for two-years fulltime Masters (LLM course) in the year 2019. It is averred that the petitioner completed her 1st and 2nd Semester as a regular candidate in the year 2020. However, on 06.02.2021, petitioner came to be arrested in connection with FIR No.RC-01/2021/NIA/JMU dated 02.03.2021 for offences under Section 18 & 20 of UA(P) Act, 1967. The petitioner is stated to have remained in custody pursuant to her arrest. 3. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner continued to study and prepare for examination even while she was in custody. She made an application before the Superintendent of the concerned jail for facilitating conduct of her exams of 3rd Semester LLM course. The Superintendent of the jail is stated to have written a communication to Controller of Examination, Central University, Kashmir, on 29.03.2021, requesting him to allot the jail special examination center. However, the said facility was not provided, whereafter the petitioner approached the Special Court, NIA, Jammu, for grant of temporary bail which was granted in her favour in terms of order dated 01.09.2021 passed by the said Court. 4. It is further averred that the petitioner approached the authorities of the Central University, Kashmir, upon her release from the jail but the authorities refused to conduct her exam on the ground that being a regular candidate, she did not have the requisite attendance in the University and, as such, she could be allowed to write her exams. 5. It is contended by the petitioner that the action of the residents in not allowing her to writ the exams of LLM 3rd Semester would work very harshly against her as she will not be able to complete her Master’s degree within the stipulated time. 6. The writ petition has been contested by the respondents by filing a reply thereto. The respondents, in their reply, have admitted most of the factual aspects contended by the petitioner in her writ petition. 6. The writ petition has been contested by the respondents by filing a reply thereto. The respondents, in their reply, have admitted most of the factual aspects contended by the petitioner in her writ petition. It is, however, contended by the respondents that due to shortage of attendance and non-appearance of the petitioner in the Continuous Internal Assessments (CIA), she could not be allowed to writ exams. This, according to the respondents, is in accordance with the Ordinance 25 of the respondent University, a copy whereof has been placed on record. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 8. Admittedly, petitioner due to her arrest and subsequent custody in jail could not attend the regular classes of 3rd Semester of LLM. Therefore, the question that arises for consideration is as to whether petitioner can be permitted under rules to writ exams on account of the circumstances which prevented her from attending the regular classes. 9. Ordinance 25 of the Central University, Kashmir, which has been issued in terms of Section 28(1)(b) of the Central Universities Act, 2009, governs the matters relating to award of Post-graduate Degree in Law i.e., LLM. Clause (9) of the said Ordinance relates to eligibility of a candidate to appear in the internal continuous assessment/end semester examination of a course. It reads as under: “9. ATTENDANCE 9.1 A candidate to be eligible to appear in the internal continuous assessment/end semester examination of a course or a complete semester shall have to put in a minimum of 75% attendance in that course/semester in addition to satisfying all other relevant conditions laid down in the Regulations. 9.2 The Dean, School of Legal Studies, on the recommendation of the HOD, shall condone the shortage of attendance to a maximum of 5% if the claim is justified and supported by valid documents. 9.3 The Vice Chancellor, on the recommendation of the HOD and Dean, School of Legal Studies shall condone shortage beyond 5% but only up to 10% for valid reasons (to be supported by documentary evidence). 9.4 However, no student shall be allowed to avail of the concession provided under Clause 9.2 & 9.3 in more than 50% of the total semesters of the programme. 9.5 The teacher concerned shall be responsible for maintaining the record of attendance of the students registered for the course.” 10. 9.4 However, no student shall be allowed to avail of the concession provided under Clause 9.2 & 9.3 in more than 50% of the total semesters of the programme. 9.5 The teacher concerned shall be responsible for maintaining the record of attendance of the students registered for the course.” 10. A bare perusal of the aforesaid clause reveals that a candidate cannot appear in end semester examination of a course if he has not put in a minimum of 75% attendance in that course/semester. The Dean, School of Legal Studies, on the recommendations of the HOD, can condone the shortage of attendance upto a maximum of 5% whereas the Vice Chancellor, on the recommendations of the HOD and Dean, School of Legal Studies, is competent to condone the shortage beyond 5% but only up to 10% for valid reasons. 11. In the instant case, petitioner has not attended the regular classes of 3rd Semester even for a day. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that even other students of 3rd Semester did not attend the regular classes as the classes were being held through online mode due to COVID-19 restrictions. 12. The requirement of Clause (9) for a candidate to be eligible to appear in the end semester examination is attendance candidate in the course. The mode of attendance may be physical or virtual, depending upon the decision that may be taken by the University authorities in this regard. In the instant case, the petitioner has, admittedly, not attended the classes even through online mode. Therefore, it cannot be stated that she has complied with the conditions mentioned in Clause (9) of the Ordinance. 13. Another condition which is relevant to the context relates to examination and evaluation. Clause (13) of the Ordinance, in this regard, requires to be noticed. It reads as under: “13. EXAMINATION AND EVALUATION 13.1 A student shall be continuously evaluated for his/her academic performance through continuous Internal Assessment (tutorials, practical, home assignments, class assignment, term papers, field work, seminars, periodical tests and Non Scholastic areas (Personality, Attitude, Scientific temper, Creative thinking, values and Social/ Community Work) and the End Semester examination as prescribed in the examination scheme of the respective course and duly approved by the Authority concerned. 13.2 Distribution of marks for each course shall be as under; Continuous Internal Assessment (CIA) 40 Marks End Semester Examination (ESE) 60 Marks 13.3 Unless provided otherwise the breakup of Continuous Internal Assessment shall be as below: Test 10 Marks Comprehensive Viva 15 Marks Assignments through PPT* 10 Marks Attendance * 05 Marks 40 Marks Marks break-up for Attendance 75% to 80% 1 mark 81% to 85% 2 marks 86% to 90% 3 marks 91% to 95% 4 marks 96% to 100% 5 marks *the decimals 0.5 and above in the marks for attendance shall be rounded off to the next figure 13.4 The continuous internal assessment shall be conducted by the teacher concerned under the overall supervision of the HOD and Dean of the School. The Head of the Department shall report the award list of CIA in respect of all courses to the Controller of Examination through the Dean. 13.5 In case of a student who could not appear in any of the components of the CIA due to medical reasons or for extraordinary circumstances(supported by documentary evidence), a separate examination in that component may be arranged by the Department concerned before the end semester examination. 13.6 The end semester examination shall be organised by the Controller of Examination, with the evaluation to be undertaken by the examiners to be appointed by the Vice Chancellor. 13.7 There shall be four End Semester Examinations, first semester examination at the middle of the first academic year and the second semester examination at the end of the first academic year. Similarly, the third and fourth semester examinations will be held at the middle and the end of the second academic year respectively. 13.8 There shall be one End semester examination of 3 hours duration carrying 60% of Marks in each course covering the entire syllabus prescribed for the course. 13.9 End Semester Practical Examinations (wherever applicable) shall ordinarily be held before the theory examinations. 13.10 A student shall be permitted to appear in the End-semester examination as per the Conduct of Examination Rules after filling up the prescribed examination form, payment of the prescribed Examination Fee, satisfying the attendance requirement and fulfilling other eligibility criteria. 13.11 To be eligible to appear in the End Semester Examination of a course the student shall have to clear the CIA with a minimum of 50% marks.” 14. 13.11 To be eligible to appear in the End Semester Examination of a course the student shall have to clear the CIA with a minimum of 50% marks.” 14. From a perusal of the aforesaid Clause, it is clear that besides requirement of attendance, a student, in order to be eligible to appear in the end-semester examination of a course, has to clear Continuous Internal Assessment (CIA) with minimum of 50% marks. In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioner has not appeared in CIA and, as such, she has not secured the minimum of 50% marks. 15. Thus, the petitioner was ineligible to appear in the end-semester examination on two counts, one that she was not having the requisite attendance and secondly she had not cleared the CIA. In such an eventuality, the only option available to the petitioner is to repeat and take readmission in 3rd Semester of the course in the next calendar year as is provided in Clause (8.3) of the Ordinance. 16. It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that Chairperson of the Academic Council in terms of Clause (16) of the Ordinance has power to relax any of the provisions of the said Ordinance in exceptional circumstances and on the recommendations of Board, School of Legal Studies. 17. In the instant case, petitioner has not carved out any exceptional circumstance that would entitle her to consideration of her case for relaxation in terms of Clause (16) of the Ordinance. It is not a case where the petitioner due to her illness, bereavement in the family or due to circumstances of similar nature was prevented from attending the clauses but it is a case where she has been arrested in a criminal offence of heinous nature. Thus, there are no exceptional circumstances in the case at hand that would entitle the petitioner to the consideration of her case in terms of Clause (16) of the Ordinance. 18. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed along with connected CM.