IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY WRIT PETITION NO.65598 OF 2016 (EDN - RES) BETWEEN:
MISS. MADHUSHREE C.N D/O NAGESH C AGED 22 YEARS R/O CHANNANKE GOWDANAHALLI CHANNAPATNA TALUKA RAMANAGARA DISTRICT RAMANAGARA 562 160 (BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADV.) AND:
1. VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY “JNANA SANGAMA” BELAGAVI – 590 018 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR 2. KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY 18TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU – 560 012 …PETITIONER REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 3. R.N.S. INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR POST CHANNASANDRA SUBRAMANYAPURA P.O BENGALURU – 560 098 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL 4. BANGALORE UNIVERSITY OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR JNANABHARATHI CAMPUS BENGALURU – 560 056 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANTOSH S NAGARALE, ADV. FOR R1; SRI. N.K. RAMESH, ADV. FOR R2;
R3 SERVED;
SRI. BRIJESH PATIL, ADV. FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.12.2016 ISSUED BY R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE – A AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner herein holds a B.Com Degree with 50% which made her eligible for getting selected for Post Graduate Degree. For the said purpose, the petitioner appeared for CET-KEA and got selected on the basis of the fact that she got 50% in the basic degree and she was pursuing her studies. That on 12.12.2016 VTU has issued an endorsement stating that admission of the petitioner in the said course has not been approved as she has scored less than 50% in aggregate in the qualifying examination.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the purpose of calculating percentage, they have to exclude the optional/non-core subjects namely environmental studies, Computer fundamentals and Indian Constitution. Whereas in the contrary, the respondent has calculated the said subjects to arrive at the aggregate percentage and accordingly Annexure-A has to be set aside and a direction has to be issued to the respondent No.1 - VTU to permit the petitioner to prosecute her studies.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1-VTU has filed statement of objections and submitted that in the similar set of facts and circumstances of case in WP No.175/2016 connected with W.P.No.7266/2016 on 24.03.2016 this court has directed the VTU and KEA to resolve the issue as to the basis to arrive at percentage. In compliance of the said order both KEA and VTU have resolved and it is decided for the purpose of computing percentage, non-core subjects have to be excluded and copy of the compliance of the said order is filed along with the objections.
4. He further submits that in the instant case, while selecting the petitioner for her PG course, the respondent No.1-VTU has included the marks secured by her in non-core subjects but she has secured less than 50% in core subjects for getting eligibility to take admission for the PG course. He also submitted that since the order of this court has been complied, the question of contraventions and violations does not arise.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers.
6. Petitioner, no doubt, by including the optional/non-core subjects has secured 50% and as of now she is prosecuting her studies. But what is relevant is that direction issued by this court in the similar circumstances in the writ petitions referred to above and in compliance of the same, both VTU and KEA have resolved and decided to compute for the purpose of percentage excluding optional/non-core subjects. Under these circumstances, it is clear that petitioner has not secured 50% marks. Hence I do not find any arbitrariness or the violations on the part of the respondent No.1-University. In the circumstances, the said rules or such resolutions made by the KEA and VTU in the writ petition referred above are just and proper.
7. Since the petitioner is already prosecuting her studies and she is in the fag end of her PG Course, in the ends of justice and also in the interest of the petitioner, she has to be permitted to appear for coming examinations.
8. In view of the above, Annexure-A is hereby set aside. Respondent No.1 VTU is directed to permit the petitioner to announce the results and permit her to appear for examinations.
The decision rendered by this court in this matter cannot be treated as precedent to any other students.
Sd/- JUDGE Bsv