IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA WRIT PETITION NO.23453/2017(EDN-EX) BETWEEN Dr. J.S. Madhu Kumar, S/o. Late J.M. Sannathammanna, Aged about 51 years, R/o Prasanna Talkies Road, Chitradurga-577 501 (By Sri J.S. Madhu Kumar, Party-in-person) AND 1. The Karnataka State Law University, Navanagar, Hubballi-580 025 Represented by its Registrar 2. The Principal, Saraswathi Law College, Chitradurga-577 501 ... PETITIONER (By Sri Basavaraj R. Nayak, for Sri Ganapathi Bhat, Adv., for R1) ... RESPONDENTS This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to take the examination of 3 years LL.B. Course, after accepting examination fee in respect of the failed subjects as per Annexures B to B4, etc.
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Petitioner, who has appeared as party-in-person, has sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to permit him to take the examination for three year LL.B. course after accepting examination fee in respect of the failed subjects as per Annexures B to B4 and to permit him to take any number of attempts till he passes the failed subjects as per Annexures B to B4.
2. By interim order dated 02.06.2017, the petitioner was permitted to take the exams “subject to the convenience of respondent No. 1”. However, the same is subject to the result of the writ petition. Further this Court has said that the petitioner shall not claim any equity in the event the petitioner fails. Today, the writ petition has been listed to consider I.A. Nos. 1/2017, 2/2017 and 3/2017. IA No.1/2017 is for early hearing of the writ petition, while I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2017 are for the direction sought.
3. Petitioner, who has appeared as party-in-person, submits that the application has been filed seeking evaluation of the answer scripts in the subjects in which he has failed, by an external evaluation under court monitored evaluation. Petitioner submits that this Court ought to direct the respondent-University to re-value his answer scripts.
4. Be that as it may, learned counsel for the 1st respondent-Karnataka State Law University has drawn my attention to the Circular dated 04/05.04.2017 and submits that in view of the said Circular the petitioner herein cannot be granted any relief as the petitioner was admitted in the year 2009 for the three year LL.B. course and he not having completed the same in time, the Circular states that he cannot be permitted to appear for the examination which commenced in June/July-2017. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the writ petition may be dismissed.
5. Petitioner has drawn my attention to the interim order dated 02.06.2017 referred to above and he contends that this Court has granted an interim order that this petitioner may be permitted to take further examination and also get his papers re-valued.
6. It is noted that the interim order granted on 02.06.2017 is an ex-parte interim order. This Court was not appraised of the Circular referred to by learned counsel for the respondent-University and in the circumstances, this Court permitted the petitioner to appear for the examination. However, it is noted that the petitioner shall not claim any equity in the event the petitioner fails.
7. The Circular dated 04/05.04.2017 reads as under:
“KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY NAVANAGAR, HUBBLLI-580 025 Accredited with ‘A’ Grade by NAAC No. KSLU Exam/2017/009 Dated:04/05-04-2017 Circular TO, The Principals, All affiliated law colleges of Karnataka State Law University, Hubballi.
Sub: Clarification regarding 2009 and 2010 batch students appearing for the next ensuing examination.
Respected sir/Madam, With reference to the above subject, it is to inform your kind self that, as per the existing Regulation of 3 year LL.B. course and also as per the resolution of the 59th Syndicate meeting, students of 2009 batch of 3 year LL.B. shall not be permitted to appear for the next ensuing examination (i.e. June/July-2017 exam).
Further, it is to clarify that 2010 batch students are permitted to appear for the next ensuing examination (i.e. June/July-2017 exam) to pass all the remaining subjects, otherwise he/she will lose their studentship as per the existing regulation. Hence, the same shall be brought to the notice of all the concerned students and office staff of your college.
Sd/-
Registrar (Evaluation)I/C ”
8. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent-University submits that the said Circular has been issued having regard to the Regulations issued under Section 86 read with Section 34(2)(ii) and Section 49 of the Karnataka State Law University Act, 2009. Under regulation 14, it is stated that the students are required to successfully complete the entire course within six years from admission to the course. Nevertheless, the Circular permitted the students admitted in the year 2009 to appear for the examination till June-July 2017. When it is stated that such students cannot appear for the said examination in June-July 2017, the petitioner has not challenged the said Circular. Further, when the University does not permit the students to take examination merely because this Court by an ex-parte interim order permitted the petitioner to take examination would not imply that the petitioner is permitted to continue to appear for the examinations and seek re-valuation of the answer scripts etc., in defiance of the regulations issued by the respondent-Law University. As already noted, the interim order was granted in the absence of this Court being appraised of the Circular referred to above.
9. Further, this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot sit in judgment over the merits of such a Circular, as the same is issued in order to maintain academic standards in Legal Education and to prohibit students of law who have not cleared their examinations in time from continuing in the course. Or otherwise, students who spend a decade or more in completing their three year LL.B. degree course would ultimately lower the standards of advocacy and the profession of advocacy which would have a negative impact on the administration of justice. In other words, maintenance of a high standard in the profession of advocacy would ultimately have a positive effect on the quality of the justice.
10. In the above view of the matter, the petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the writ petition, IA Nos.2 and 3 stand dismissed, while IA No.1/2017 stands disposed of.
Sbs* Sd/- JUDGE