IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA WRIT PETITION No.54656/2017 (EDN-RES) BETWEEN:
SMT. ARUNA .L W/O. NEMICHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, RESIDING AT OPP. NAGARAKATTE, JOGIMATT ROAD, CHITRADURGA – 577 501. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI: SUBRAMANYA BHAT M., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001.
2. THE SECRETARY BOARD OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001.
3. THE PRINCIPAL, ST. MARY’S POLYTECHNIC, FORT ROAD, K.B.EXTENSION, CHITRADURGA – 577 501. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT: PRAMODINI KISHAN, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2) ***** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION DTD:23.11.2017 PASSED BY THE R-2 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-E AS THE SAME IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14 & 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, AS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL, IRRATIONAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioner has assailed communication dated 23/11/2017 (Annesure-E), passed by respondent No.2/Secretary, Board of Technical Education, Bangalore-
560 001, as being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, as it is arbitrary, illegal, irrational and unconstitutional. Petitioner has sought a direction to respondent No.2 to issue a diploma certificate to her.
2. The facts of the case stated succinctly are that, the petitioner joined diploma course in Electrical and Electronics Engineering Trade in the academic year 2009-
10. The said course was of three years duration comprising of six semesters. According to the petitioner, she had completed fourth semester in the academic year between 2009 and 2011. She entered fifth semester in the academic year 2011-2012. According to the petitioner, she got married in November, 2011. As a result, she did not appear for any examination either, practical or theory in the fifth semester. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, she appeared for theory examination of the fifth semester in the year 2013 and has been successful in the said theory examination and she has successfully completed her theory and practical examination of sixth semester. The difficulty however is with regard to the petitioner being absent for one of the practical examinations namely, Communication and Analysis Skill Development Program (CASP). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she was permitted to appear for the practical examination in CASP in November 2016 and she has secured 74 marks out of 75. He submits that if the said marks obtained by her in the practical examination is considered along with theory examination, which she has also attended in the said subject, then petitioner would have cleared all the papers in the fifth semester examination and as she has cleared the sixth semester examination, she is entitled for a certificate to be issued by the Department.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further brings to my notice that on the basis of the results, she applied for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) in Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Corporation Limited and she had been short listed in the ratio of 1:2 (Annexure-G). When the said Corporation sought her diploma certificate and she in turn requested the Department to issue the said certificate, Annexure-E has been passed. He submits that Annexure-E is illegal and has caused great hardship to the petitioner. As a result, her studies in the third diploma course has come to naught. Hence, she is not entitled to seek employment on the basis of the said education. He therefore, submits that the impugned order dated 23/11/2017 be quashed and her appearance in the practical examination held in November 2016 be considered for the purpose of results of the fifth semester examination in CASP as she has passed in the theory examination and the respondents be directed to issue diploma certificate to the petitioner.
4. Per contra, learned Addl. Government Advocate, who has appeared on advance notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the petitioner cannot be granted any relief in this writ petition and that Annexure-E has been issued in accordance with the Regulations and Guidelines for diploma courses for the Curriculum commencing in the year 2009-10 onwards which are applicable to the petitioner. She submits that the petitioner was absent for the practical examination concerning CASP in November 2011 and that if a student is absent in the practical examination, then such a student is not entitled to appear in the said examination subsequently. That the student may be permitted to repeat the theory examination if the said student has not cleared it. But as far as practical examination is concerned, it is a one time affair. She submits that no relief could be granted to the petitioner even if Regulation 10 is to be applied as she is a student who commenced her diploma course in 2009-10 and as per Regulation 10, the maximum period for completion of course is nine years i.e., thrice the duration of the course from the date of admission, which would come to an end in May 2018. She further submits that even if this Court is to permit the petitioner to surrender all the results of the fifth semester examination and re-appear in the said examination, at this point of time, such a relief cannot be granted to her as the examination has commenced for the year 2017 and is to conclude shortly. In the circumstances, learned Addl. Government Advocate submits that Annexure-E be sustained as there is no merit in the writ petition.
5. The detailed narration of facts and contentions would not call for reiteration except highlighting the fact that the petitioner has completed her first to fourth semesters in the diploma course between the years 2009 and 2011. Subsequently, in the year 2014, the petitioner has also been successful in prosecuting her sixth semester of the said course. But the problem arises with regard to the fifth semester. On perusal of Annexures-A to A10, it shows that she did not appear for any of the examination held in November 2011 as during that period she was married. Thereafter, she appeared in some papers in the fifth semester and cleared two subjects (Annexure-A11) and subsequently, as per Annexure-A12, she cleared two more papers. As per Annexure-A13, she again did not clear one of the papers, which paper she cleared in June 2015 (Annexure-A14). As far as CASP is concerned, she was allotted twenty six marks and three marks in the examination held in November 2015 (Annexure-A15) i.e., in theory and practical respectively and she repeated that exam in May 2016 (Annexure-A16). She intended to repeat that examination in 2016, but again she remained absent in the theory examination. Subsequently, she took the examination in November 2016 and she was awarded thirty two marks out of fifty marks and seventy four marks out of seventy five marks in the practical examination. As a result, according to the petitioner she has passed in the said subject namely, CASP.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the results must be taken into consideration and construed that she has cleared the said paper and all her papers in sixth semester and she must be awarded a diploma certificate. But according to learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, the petitioner though could have repeated and reappeared in the theory papers of CASP, she could not have repeated her practical examination. On the basis of Annexures-A to A10, A15, A16 and A17, she submits that if the same are compared, it would reflect that the petitioner has been awarded three marks in the practical examination/internal assessment of CASP paper, which is the marks that she has obtained. Having regard to the percentage of attendance, she has secured three marks in terms of Regulation 5 of the Regulations as she had more than 75% and upto 78% attendance, but she did not appear in the practical examination of CASP when it was conducted for the first time and the Regulations do not permit students to repeat only the practical examination at any time, thereafter except in terms of Regulation 10, which specifically states that a candidate could surrender his or her results within thirty days after announcement of the result on paying the requisite fee for improvement in theory papers, but as per Regulation 10(2), no improvement is allowed in practical/lab subjects or project work or industrial training assessment. However, improvement is allowed in drawing subject. In the circumstances, the contention of learned Addl. Government Advocate having regard to the facts of the present case would have to be accepted for the reason that the petitioner could not have been permitted to re- appear in the practical examination wherein she is said to have secured 74 marks. Therefore, the said result cannot be considered for the purpose of declaring her as having passed in CASP subject so as to award her a diploma certificate.
7. The matter has been heard at length, in order to ascertain as to whether any other relief could be granted to the petitioner and Regulation 10 was considered in detail. Even if the petitioner is permitted to surrender all her results of the fifth semester so as to re-appear in all the subjects, both in theory and practicals of all the subjects, the facts remains that, at this point of time, she cannot do so as the examination of fifth semester has already commenced from 22/11/2017 and is to end shortly.
8. Further, as per Regulation 11, maximum period for completion of course shall be thrice the duration of the course, i.e., nine years for three year course. However, she had to complete her course by May 2018 as the said period of nine years would lapse from the date she was admitted to the diploma course i.e., from the year 2009-10. Therefore, in the succeeding academic year 2018-19, petitioner cannot be permitted to re-appear for the fifth semester examinations after surrendering her results of the fifth semester, as Regulation 11 cannot be breached. In the circumstances, this Court can only sympathize with the petitioner as it cannot grant any relief to the petitioner, which would be in violation of the Regulations and Guidelines for Diploma Courses as per the Curriculum–C-09/10 with effect from 2009-10 onwards. In the circumstances, writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE S*