IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR WRIT PETITION No.34341/2016 (EDN RES) BETWEEN JOEL JOHN S/O JOHN PMB AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS STUDENT: BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING (BE) DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING, DR. AMBEDKAR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, OUTER RING ROAD, MALLATHAHALLI, BANGALORE-560056. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. SACHIN B S., ADVOCATE) AND 1. PRINCIPAL DR. AMBEDKAR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, (AUTONOMOUS INSTITUTION AFFILIATED TO VTU BELGAUM) OUTER RING ROAD, MALLATHAHALLI, BANGALORE-560056.
2. PLANNING EVALUATION COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION DR. AMBEDKAR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, (AUTONOMOUS INSTITUTION AFFILIATED TO VISHWESHWARA TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY BELGAUM), OUTER RING ROAD, MALLATHAHALLI, BANGALORE-560056.
3. VISHWESHWARA TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY (VTU) BELGAUM BELGAUM-590005, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
4. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, MS BUILDING, BANGALORE-1. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISH H V., ADV. FOR R1 & R2, SRI. SANTHOSH S.NAGARALE, ADV. FOR R3, SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA POOJAR, HCGP FOR R4) * * * THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 9.12.2015 PASSED BY R-1 AND SIMILAR ORDER PASSED BY R-2 ON 11.9.2015 AS PER ANNEXURES-A & B IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR “PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP” THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent institute files into the Court a memo enclosing herein a copy of the minutes of the Sixth Academic Council Meeting held on 02.09.2014 and 09.07.2016 and the copy of the Extract of the Guidelines for Implementation of Academic Autonomy.
3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has exhausted the 5 attempts, which has been permitted by the 1st respondent institute as per the Regulation 14.0 of the Academic Regulations and having failed to clear the subjects, the petitioner has been declared being Not Fit for the Technical Course [NFTC] and it is this decision, which is called in question by the petitioner herein and the consequential action of preventing him/her from taking up the examination to complete the course.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents and the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the light of the resolution passed by the Sixth Academic Council Meeting held on 02.09.2014 with regard to review of the minutes of the previous academic council meeting held on 31.05.2014 on item No.6 and the resolution passed by the Academic Council in its Meeting held on 09.07.2016 with regard to agenda No.3, whereby similarly placed students have been permitted to take up examinations, the petitioner herein also becomes entitled for a similar relief on the ground of parity. It is no-doubt true that the 1st respondent institute cannot be coerced in the matter of extension of the relief but, it is also true that it ought to and shall treat similarly placed students on similar terms.
Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent institute to publish the result and to issue necessary certificate and credentials insofar as the petitioner is concerned.
Sd/- JUDGE CT-HR Ksm*