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 NO.55043 OF 2017 (EDN-RES) BETWEEN:
Sri. Dinesh .D S/o late Dhana Shekar R, Aged about 24 years, No.49, 13th Cross, 3rd Main, Kalappa Layout, Rajanna Colony, Basavanagar, Marathalli Post, Bengaluru – 560 037.
(By Sri. Abhijeet S.K., Advocate) AND:
1. Registrar Visvesvaraya Technological University, Jnana Sangama, Belagavi – 590 018, Karnataka.
…Petitioner 2. The Principal CMR Institute of Technology, ITPL Main Road, AECS Layout, Kundalahalli, Bengaluru – 560 037.
... Respondents (By Sri. Santosh S. Nagarale, Advocate for R-1) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the circular dated 01.12.2017 issued by the R-1 addressed to the R-1 to not allow the petitioner of 2011 Batch to write the examinations vide Annexure-A and etc., This writ petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the court made the following:
ORDER Petitioner has assailed circular dated 01.12.2017 issued by the 2nd respondent-University at Annexure-A.
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 in all his 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 (Evaluation), by Circular dated 1.12.2017 (Annexure-`A’), has stated that the petitioner had completed 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 petitioners herein and therefore, he 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, he could avail of the same, but under the extant regulations, he cannot be permitted 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 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 opportunity, if he is otherwise eligible to do so.
6. Subject to the aforesaid observation, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Mds/-