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.53112-53114 OF 2017 (EDN-EX) BETWEEN:
1. Sri. Ishwara Bhat B S/o Jayarama Bhat, Age – 28 years, Occ: Student, R/at: Banari House, Kanyanna Post, Bantwal, Dist: Mangaluru – 574 279 USN No.4VP11EC402.
2. Sri. Vinayakrishna V S/o Venkappayya P, Age : 30 years, Occ: Student, R/at: Kings Park Layout, Mary Hill, Mangalore – 575 015 USN No.4S011ME428.
3. Sri. Jayachandra S/o Jaddu Prajapati, Age : 28 years, Occ: Student, R/at : Jogi House Site No-14, Baikampady Meenakaliya, Post : Panambur, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada Dist – 575 010 USN No.4ES11ME405.
…Petitioners (By Sri. Veerabhadra R. Shivangol, Advocate) AND:
1. Registrar Visvesvaraya Technological University, Jnana Sangama, Belagavi – 590 018.
2. The Principal Vivekananda College of Engineering & Technology, Nehru Nagar, Puttur – 574 203.
3. The Principal St Joseph Engineering College, Vamanjoor, Mangaluru – 575 028.
4. The Principal Srinivas School of Engineering, Mangaluru – 575 021.
... Respondents (By Sri. Santosh S. Nagarale, Advocate for R-1) These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to secure the records and quash the impugned notifications dated 21.09.2017 at Annexure-K and notification dated 04.11.2017 vide Annexure-O and etc.
These writ petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the court made the following:
ORDER Petitioners have assailed notifications dated 21.09.2017 (Annexure-K) and 04.11.2017 (Annexure-O) issued by the Registrar of the 1st respondent-University.
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- D), 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 notifications dated 21.09.2017 and 04.11.2017 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-D 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/-