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.55478/2017 (EDN-EX) BETWEEN:
KUMARI SALEHA BANU D/O. DASTAGEER CHOUDHARI, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, C.M.R. INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, NO.132, AECS LAYOUT, KUNDANAHALLI, IT PARK ROAD, BANGALORE-560 037. …PETITIONER. (BY SRI. I.R. BIRADAR, ADV.) AND:
1. THE REGISTRAR (EVALUATION) VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, BELAGAVI-590 018.
2. THE PRINCIPAL, C.M.R INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, NO.132, AECS LAYOUT, KUNDANAHALLI, IT PARK ROAD, BANGALORE-560 037. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANTOSH S. NAGARALE, ADV. FOR R1) ******* THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CIRCULAR DATED 1.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: -
ORDER Petitioner has assailed Circular dated 1.12.2017 issued by the Registrar (Evaluation) of the 1st respondent-University vide Annexure E.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was admitted to B.E Engineering course in the academic year 2011-12 by way of lateral entry. She was expected to complete her course in three years’ time. However, she had three further academic years to complete the course, which expired in the academic year 2016-17. But as the petitioner has not cleared all the subjects, she sought for a further opportunity to appear in the examinations to be held in the subjects in which she had not cleared. The Registrar, by Circular dated 1.12.2017 (Annexure-E), has stated that the petitioner had to complete her course in the academic year 2016-17 and no further opportunity could be given to her to complete her course.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as far as the students who are admitted in the academic year 2010-11 are concerned, the University has given them liberty beyond six years to complete the course and that a similar opportunity ought to have been made available to the petitioner herein and therefore, submits that the impugned Circular dated 1.12.2017 is not in accordance with law.
4. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.Santosh S.Nagarale, who has appeared on advance notice, would submit that in the event the University is to extend additional opportunity to the petitioner herein, she could avail of the same, but under the extant regulations, she cannot be permitted to appear in the examinations, that too, by an interim order to be passed by this Court.
5. Having regard to the fact that Annexure-E specifically states that beyond six years, the petitioner is not entitled to any further opportunity to appear in the examinations in which she has not cleared, this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot direct the respondent-University to permit the petitioner to appear in further examinations to be conducted by the University. Such a direction would be a direction to the University to violate its extant Regulations which is impermissible in law.
6. In the circumstances, no relief can be granted to the petitioner herein as sought by her. However, in the event the respondent-University affords further opportunity to the petitioner to complete her course, she is entitled to make use of such an opportunity, if she is otherwise eligible to do so.
7. Subject to the aforesaid observation, this Writ Petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE NG* CT-ADP