IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA WRIT PETITION NOS.55059 - 55063 OF 2017 (EDN-EX) BETWEEN:
1. Lakshmikanth V S/o late B.C. Veerabhadrappa, Aged about 31 years, R/at No.44, DHCV Nilaya, Dr. TCM Royan Road, Bengaluru – 560 053.
2. Nandeesh Kumar M.E. S/o Erappa M.V.
Aged about 32 years, Residing at No.1778, Anand Building, 3rd Phase, Yelahanka New Town, Bengaluru – 560 106.
3. Vijaya Kumar N S/o Nagalingaiah, Aged about 32 years, R/at No.13, 3rd Cross, 7th Main, Syndicate Bank Colony, Padmanabhanagar, BSK 3rd Stage, Bengaluru – 560 085.
4. Jayakrishna R S/o Rama Krishna Kurup, Aged about 38 years, R/at C-19/5, DRDO Township, Phase-I, C.V. Raman Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 093.
5. S. Karthikeyan S/o S. Sundaram, Aged about 32 years, No.67, 15th Main, 1st Cross, B.S. Colony, Indiranagar, HAL 2nd Stage, Bengaluru – 560 008.
(By Sri. Adinarayanan, Advocate) …Petitioners AND:
1. The State of Karnataka Dept. of Higher Education, Rept. by its Secretary, M.S. Building, Bangalore – 560 001.
2. Visvesvaraya Technological University Belagavi – 590 018, Karnataka State, India, Rept. by its Registrar (Evaluation).
3. BMS Evening College of Engineering, Bull Temple Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore – 560 019. Rept. by its Principal.
... Respondents (By Ms. Pramodini Kishan, AGA for R-1 Sri. Santosh S. Nagarale, Advocate for R-2) These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the circular issued by the R-2 on dated 1.12.2017 vide Annexure-A, consequently, direct the R-2 to allow the petitioners to take their examination for December 2017/January 2018 and extend the benefit to these petitioners for extension of duration to complete their engineering decree as per the notification dated 27.10.2016 vide Annexure-G and etc., These writ petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the court made the following:
ORDER Petitioners have assailed circular dated 01.12.2017 issued by the 2nd respondent-University at Annexure-A.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were admitted to B.E Engineering course in the academic year 2011-12 by way of lateral entry. They were expected to complete their course in three years time. However, they had three further academic years to complete the course, which expired in the academic year 2016-17. But as the petitioners have not cleared in all their subjects, they sought for a further opportunity to appear in the examinations to be held in the subjects in which they had not cleared. The Registrar, by notification dated 27.10.2016 (Annexure-G), has stated that the petitioners had to complete their course in the academic year 2016-17 and no further opportunity could be given to them to complete their course.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 petitioners herein and therefore, he submits that the impugned Circular dated 01.12.2017 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 petitioners herein, they could avail of the same, but under the extant regulations, they 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-A specifically states that beyond six years, the petitioners are not entitled to any further opportunity to appear in the examinations in which they have not cleared, this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot direct the respondent-University to permit the petitioners to appear in further examinations to be conducted by the University that too by an interim order. Such a direction would be a direction to the University to violate its extant Regulations which is impermissible in law. In the circumstances, no relief can be granted to the petitioners herein as sought by them. However, in the event the respondent-University affords further opportunity to the petitioners to complete their course, they are entitled to make use of such opportunity, if they are otherwise eligible to do so.
6. Subject to the aforesaid observation, the Writ Petitions are dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Mds/-