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.55258/2017 (EDN-RES) BETWEEN:
RAJIVALOCHANA R.S S/O. SAMPATH KUMAR R, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT NO.102, RAJENAHALLI, MASTHI HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 137 USN NO.1MJ11CS417. …PETITIONER. (BY SRI. MANOJ B.G, ADV.) AND:
1. REGISTRAR, VISVESHWARAIAH TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY, JNANA SANGAMA, BELGAUM-590 018.
2. THE PRINCIPAL M.V.J. COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING CHANNASANDRA MAIN ROAD, NEAR ITPB, WHITEFIELD, KADUGODI, BENGALURU-560 067. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANTOSH S. NAGARALE, ADV. FOR R-1) ******* THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SECURE THE RECORDS AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATIONS ISSUED BY R-1 VISVESWARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, JNANASANGAMA BENGALURU-18 KARNATAKA DATED 21.9.2017 AT ANNEXURE-H AND NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY R-1 VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, JNANASANGAMA BENGALURU-18 KARNATAKA DATED 4.11.2017 AT ANNEXURE-K AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: -
ORDER Petitioner has assailed Notification dated 21.09.2017 (Annexure-H) and Notification dated 04.11.2017 (Annexure-K) issued by the Registrar of the 1st respondent-University 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. 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 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 Notification dated 4.11.2017 (Annexure-K), 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 were 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 notifications are not in accordance with law.
4. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.Santosh S.Nagarale, who has appeared for the respondents on advance notice, would submit that in the event the University is to extend additional opportunity 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. This is on account of Circular dated 1.12.2017 issued by the respondent-University.
5. Having regard to the fact that impugned Notifications 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.
6. 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 opportunity, if he is otherwise eligible to do so.
7. Subject to the aforesaid observation, this Writ Petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE NG* CT-ADP