IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE Mrs. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA WRIT PETITION NO.51509/2017 (EDN-EX) BETWEEN:-
PRAVEEN KUMAR S.K. SON OF KRISHNAPPA AGED 26 YEARS RESIDING AT SHETTIHALLI VILLAGE AND POST CHANNAPATNA TALUK DISTRICT RAMANAGARA – 562 160 …PETITIONER (BY SRI S.B.DHANANJAYA, ADV.) AND:-
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANASOUDHA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY 2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AMBEDKAR VEEDHI VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001 3. DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION K.R.CIRCLE AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001 4. VISHWESHWARAYYA TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY ‘JNANA SANGAMA’ BELAGAVI – 590 018 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR 5. GHOUSIA COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING RAMANAGAR DISTRICT RAMANAGAR – 562 159 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRAMODINI KISHAN, AGA. FOR R1 TO R3 SRI SANTOSH S NAGARALE, ADV. FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06.10.2017 PASSED BY R-4 (ANNEXURE-C) DENYING THE REQUEST OF THE INSTITUTION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO ATTEND THE CLASSES FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2017-18 ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Petitioner has assailed letter dated 06.10.2017 (Annexure-C) issued by the Registrar of the 4th respondent- University.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner who was admitted to B.E. Engineering course by way of lateral entry, has completed his B.E Engineering course during the academic year 2016-17. He was expected to complete his course in three years time. However, he had three further academic years to complete the course, which expired in the academic year 2016-17. But as the petitioner has not cleared in all the subjects, he sought for a further opportunity to appear in the examinations to be held in the subjects in which he had not cleared. The Registrar, by letter dated 06.10.2017 (Annexure-C), has stated that the petitioner had to complete his course in the academic year 2016-17 and no further opportunity could be given to him to complete his 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, he submits that the impugned letter dated 06.10.2017 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 opportunities to the petitioner herein, he could avail of the same, but under the extant regulations, he 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 the notification specifically states that beyond six years, the petitioner is not entitled to any further opportunity to appear in the examinations in which he 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; 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 petitioner herein as sought by him. However, in the event the respondent-University affords further opportunity to the petitioner to complete his course, he is entitled to make use of such an opportunity, if he is otherwise eligible to do so.
6. Subject to the aforesaid observation, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE bnv*