IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.48929/2018 (EDN-RES) BETWEEN Sri. Rohit Kumar S/o Ashok Kumar Singh Aged about 27 years Occupation: Student R/at Gangothri Nagar, 9th Cross, SIT Extension, SIT Back Gate Water Tank Road Tumkur – 572 103. ... Petitioner (By Sri. N. K. Kantharaju, Advocate) AND 1. The Registrar Visvesvaraya Technological University “Jnana Sangama”, Belagavi – 590018 2. The Principal Siddaganga Institute of Technology (An Autonomous Institute Affiliated to Vivesvaraya Technological University, Belgaum) B.H. Road, Tumkur – 572 103. ... Respondents (By Sri. Santosh S. Nagarale, Adv. for R1; M/s. Shivappa Associates for R2) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India praying to direct the R-2 to permit the petitioner to register admission for backlog subjects in 2nd semester to 6th semesters of I, II and III year B.E. and fresh admission for 7th and 8th semesters of 4th year for all subjects, to attend regular classes and to permit the petitioner to appear for the backlog subjects in 2nd semesters to 6th semesters I, II, II year B.E. and fresh admission for 7th and 8th semesters of 4th year to complete the B.E. degree in Chemical Engineering to be conducted by the R-2 College during the academic year 2018-19, 2019-2020 and 2020-21 for three years as per Annexure-J dated 24.09.2018 and etc.
This writ petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner, an engineering student has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus to the second respondent-college affiliated to the first respondent-University to register his candidature for backlog subjects in II to VI Semester and for all subjects of VII and VIII Semesters, after permitting him to attend regular classes followed by examinations for the B.E., course in chemical engineering. The prayer column is little clumsy.
2. After service of notice, the respondent-University is represented by its Panel Counsel and the second respondent college is represented by its learned counsel.
3. Petitioner has filed application in I.A.No.2/2019, seeking the quashment of letter dated 11.10.2018 at Annexure-L banking upon the judgment dated 30.07.2014 rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.24016/2014 (EDN-EX) (Sri. Rahul Ranjan Vs., The Registrar and others) a copy whereof is at Annexure-K.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fact matrix of his case substantially matches with that of aforesaid Rahul Ranjan’s case and therefore, similar relief needs to be granted on the principle of parity, regardless of its precedential value. Per contra the learned counsel for the respondent-University submits that although the fact matrix are the matchability, the judgment backed upon the petitioner specifically states that it shall not be treated as precedent for other cases. However, the learned counsel for the second respondent-college makes submission in support of the petitioner.
5. Ordinarily, whether a judgment cited has precedential value or not is to be judged by the Court before whom it is cited. However, where a judgment is rendered in peculiar circumstances of a case, it is noticed that the Courts enter a caution that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. However, such observation per se does not deprive a similarly circumstanced person from claiming the relief at the hands of this Court in his own right, citing the said judgment, not as a precedent but as a factor of parity. In such a situation a citizen cannot be denied relief if he is otherwise entitled to. Such an entitlement arises in the present case, because of the fair stand taken by the second respondent college who is ready and willing to grant redressal to the grievance of the petitioner.
6. In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds in part; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the second respondent-College to consider the claim of the petitioner for the redressal of his grievance ventilated in the writ petition, keeping in view the observations made hereinabove. The first respondent-University thereupon shall consider according of its approval to the decision taken by the second respondent- College. Four weeks for compliance.
In view of the disposal the main matter, the applications do not survive for consideration.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE SN