Allowed

Sri. Suresh Kumar V.K. v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC30 Sept 2013WP/11939/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition filed by an LL.M. student allowed to sit for the Human Rights Theory examination in the ensuing session. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit fees and directed the college to forward the same to the University, which was ordered to permit the petitioner to appear, as he was deprived of revaluation chances due to the University's failure t

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to the petitioner to appear for the Human Rights Theory examination in the ensuing session; directed to deposit fee with the third respondent College.

Sri. Suresh Kumar V.K. Vs State of Karnataka — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 30^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2013

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.ABDUL NAZEER

¶5

W.P.No.11939/2013(EDN-EX)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI SURESH KUMAR V.K. S/O KUPPANDI, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO.829, GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE, ANJANAPURA, BANGALORE-560062.

¶8

.. PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.CYRIL PRASAD PAIS, ADV.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001.

¶12

BANGALORE UNIVERSITY GNANABHARATHI, BANGALORE – 560 056, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶13

¶14

Dr.RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA COLLEGE OF LAW, NO.1 AND 2, GOTTIGERE, BEHIND POST OFFICE, BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 083.

¶15

.. RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY Sri OMKUMAR.R., AGA FOR R1 Sri N.K.RAMESH, ADV., FOR R2 Sri C.N.MAHADESHWARAN, ADV. FOR R3)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-A DATED 19.11.2012 AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO SIT FOR THE EXAMINATINO OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS THEORY AND ETC.

¶18

This petition coming on for preliminary hearing ‘B’ group, this day, the court made the following;

¶19

ORDER

¶20

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶21

Petitioner had appeared for the examination of failed subjects of 5 year LLB course in November, 2012. Respondent University did not declare the result of the said examination. Therefore, the petitioner filed writ petition before this court in W.P.No.12345/2012 seeking a direction to the respondent University

¶22

to declare the result of the examination taken by him. On

¶23

¶24

10.08.2012, it was submitted on behalf of the respondent University

¶25

that the University has declared the result of the examination on the previous day. Recording the said submission, the writ petition was disposed of.

¶26

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is

¶27

that since the result of the examination taken by the petitioner was not declared by the respondent University along with other students, he could not apply for revaluation of the answer scripts. He had a bright chance of success in revaluation. On account of the mistake of the University he was deprived of a chance to apply for revaluation. Therefore, he should be permitted to take examination in the subject, namely, ‘Human Rights Theory’ in which he had failed.

¶28

It is clear from the materials on record that though the petitioner had appeared for the examination in the subject ‘Human Rights Theory’ during October-November 2012 his result was not declared by the respondent University along with the other students. Therefore, he had to file writ petition in W.P.No.12345/2012. At the

¶29

¶30

time of hearing of the said writ petition, a submission was made on behalf of respondent University that the result of the petitioner was declared on the previous day. Since the result was not declared along with other students, who had appeared for the said examination, he was deprived of an opportunity to apply for revaluation as there is a bar in the relevant Regulations of the University. I am of the view that respondent University has to permit the petitioner to appear for the examination in the subject, namely, ‘Human Rights Theory’ in the ensuing examination (October-Novermber, 2013).

¶31

The petitioner is permitted to deposit the examination fee with the third respondent College within a period of one week from today and the third respondent is directed to forward the same to the respondent University immediately thereafter. The respondentUniversity is directed to permit the petitioner to appear for the

¶32

¶33

ensuing examination in the aforesaid subject. Writ petition is

¶34

accordingly allowed. No costs.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE.

¶36

DKB

Sri. Suresh Kumar V.K. v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Suresh Kumar V.K. v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Gangamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt D M Manjula Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Muniyamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Munihanumaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Dayananda T C Vs the State of Karnataka

Teleca Software Solutions Vs Nil