IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 09TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT APPEAL NO.2968 OF 2019 (EDN-RES) BETWEEN:
1. THE BANGALORE UNIVERSITY JNANABHARATHI CAMPUS NOW REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR BENGALURU-560 056.
2. MR. RAVI KUMAR REGISTRAR THE BENGALURU UNIVERSITY JNANABHARATHI CAMPUS BENGALURU-560 056.
(BY SRI: D.ASWATHAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND:
SMT. PADMAVATHI G.G. ALIAS SMT. SHILPA G.G.
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS DAUGHTER OF LATE SRI GOVINDAIAH RESIDING AT NO.142, 3RD FLOOR, SHAKTHI GANAPATHI TEMPLE ROAD ...APPELLANTS 5TH ROAD, DEFENCE LAYOUT VIDYARANYAPURA BENGALURU-560 097.
… RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT - ABSENT - UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.06.2019 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.31452 OF 2018 (EDN-RES) BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT PRINCIPAL BENCH IN ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION AND ALLOW THE APPEAL WITH COST OF THE PROCEEDINGS THROUGHOUT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 04.06.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.31452 of 2018 by the learned Single Judge, in allowing the writ petition and directing the respondent-University to permit the petitioner to resume her studies for the admission to second year MBA course of third semester (evening), the respondent-University is in appeal.
2. The learned Counsel for the appellants contends that the findings of the learned Single Judge in para 7 is erroneous. That the Regulations 2 and 5 of the University prescribes the period of 4 years to complete the course from the date of admission. The writ petitioner was admitted to the course on 05.10.2013. Therefore, the petitioner would have to complete the course by 05.10.2017. The representation was made by the writ petitioner on personal grounds on 03.04.2017. The learned Single Judge was of the view that four years is to be reckoned from the date of representation. Therefore, she was permitted to take up the admission for second year MBA course.
3. The respondent is served and unrepresented.
4. On hearing appellants’ Counsel, we are of the view that it is inappropriate to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Regulations 2 and 5 postulates the period of four years from the date of admission. Therefore, the course should have been completed as on 05.10.2017. Since the date of admission was on 05.10.2013, the findings of the learned Single Judge that the four years is to be reckoned from the date of submission of such representation is incorrect. If such a reasoning is to be adopted, then the petitioner in the instant case would receive a total period of 8 years to complete the course. Therefore, such an interpretation is inappropriate. Hence, we find that the learned Single Judge committed an error in interpreting Regulations 2 and 5.
5. The contention of the appellants’ Counsel that Regulations 2 and 5 are applicable from the date of admission to the students is upheld. However, in view of the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge in permitting the petitioner to resume her studies, we do not find it appropriate to interfere with the said order. The course of MBA is an evening course and it is specially intended for people who are in employment. Since personal reasons have been assigned, the learned Single Judge thought it appropriate to grant her permission to complete the course. Hence, we do not find any reasons to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge. In view of the facts and circumstances involved, the order is applicable only so far as the present appeal is concerned.
We reiterate that Regulations 2 and 5 are applicable from the date of admission and not from the date of representation.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE *bgn/-