IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA WRIT PETITION NOs.49335-49339/2017 (EDN - EX) BETWEEN:
1. VIJAYAKUMARI G D/O G.M. GOVINDARAJU AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/O #154, 4TH CROSS SAPTHAGIRI NILAYA GEDDALAHALLI, RMV 2ND STAGE SANJAYANAGAR POST BENGALURU – 560 094 2. G. FRANCIS S/O A.X. GNANA RAJ AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/O 220, SIMON NAGER ANNEX MELARAMANPUDUR ASARIPALLAM ROAD NAGERCOIL, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT TAMIL NADU – 629 004 3. P. ARNOLD JOE S/O T. PAUL MANOHARAN AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/O 27, M.L. PILLAI NAGAR SOUTH HIGH GROUND ROAD RALAYOMKOTTAI THIRUNEIVELI DISTRICT TAMIL NADU – 627 002 4. A.V. THENMOZHI D/O S.E. VEERAPTHRAN R.MANI CHAMBER AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS AMMAPETTAI (PO) BHAVANI (TQ), ERODE (DT.) TAMIL NADU – 638 311 5. S. PRAKASH S/O M. SAKTHIVEL AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/O 68, EAST STREET AMMAN NAGAR, SAKTHI GARDEN P. VDUR NAMAKKAL (DT.) TAMIL NADU – 638 102 (BY SRI. M.V.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND:
... PETITIONERS 1. THE KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY NAVANAGAR, HUBLI – 580 025 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR (EVALUATION) 2. THE PRINCIPAL SHESHADRIPURAM LAW COLLEGE SHESHADRIPURAM BENGALURU – 560 020 3. THE PRINCIPAL VIVEKANANDA LAW COLLEGE MARUTHINAGAR EXTENSION GAYATHRINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 021 ... RESPONDENTS THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED CIRCULAR DATED 4/5.4.2017 ISSUED BY R-1 AS PER ANNEXURE – C BY ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AS THE CASE MAY BE IN SO FAR AS 2010 BATCH IS CONCERNED, ETC., THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING;
ORDER The petitioners herein contend that they were admitted to the three year Law course in the academic year 2010-2011. They further contend that they have not completed their course. In the circumstances, they have challenged Circular dated 04/05.04.2017 issued by the 1st respondent-University.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Circular is illegal and that the Circular is not annexed with the resolution of the 59th Syndicate meeting of the Law University. He further submits that the Law University could not have debarred the petitioners from taking examination by issuing such a Circular, resulting in their career in Law being jeopardized. In the circumstances, petitioners’ counsel submits that the petitioners may be permitted to take the examination commencing in December-2017.
3. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that the said Circular has been issued having regard to the Regulation of three year LL.B. course and that the petitioners herein were admitted to the said course in the academic year-2009 and having not completed their course within the stipulated time, they cannot be permitted to deviate from the circular.
4. The Circular reads as under:
“KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY NAVANAGAR, HUBBLLI-580 025 Accredited with ‘A’ Grade by NAAC No. KSLU Exam/2017/009 Dated:04/05-04-2017 Circular TO, The Principals, All affiliated law colleges of Karnataka State Law University, Hubballi.
Sub: Clarification regarding 2009 and 2010 batch students appearing for the next ensuing examination.
Respected sir/Madam, With reference to the above subject, it is to inform your kind self that, as per the existing Regulation of 3 year LL.B. course and also as per the resolution of the 59th Syndicate meeting, students of 2009 batch of 3 year LL.B. shall not be permitted to appear for the next ensuing examination (i.e. June/July-2017 exam).
Further, it is to clarify that 2010 batch students are permitted to appear for the next ensuing examination (i.e. June/July-2017 exam) to pass all the remaining subjects, otherwise he/she will lose their studentship as per the existing regulation. Hence, the same shall be brought to the notice of all the concerned students and office staff of your college.
Sd/- Registrar(Evaluation)I/C ”
A reading of the said Circular would indicate that the Law University does not intend to permit the students who were admitted as back as in the year 2009 to take examination in June/July-2017. The object is to ensure that students who have not completed the three year Law course within a reasonable time should not be permitted to take the examination repeatedly, which will only result in lowering of standards in the profession of Law. If the University has not permitted the students who have been admitted in the year 2009 to continue to appear for the examinations in the year 2017 and has permitted the students who have been admitted in the year 2010 to take examinations, subject to the certain conditions, then the said stipulations in the Circular have been issued by the University, keeping in mind the standards of legal education. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot sit in judgment over the stipulation and standards that have been sought to be regulated and maintained by the University. Those are aspects which have to be handled by the experts in the field. This Court cannot permit the students to appear in the examination contrary to the regulations or the stipulations of the University. Further, there is no valid contention raised as to why the Circular is bad in Law.
In the circumstances, there is no merit in the writ petitions. Writ petitions are dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Bsv