Allowed

Anupriya James v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Apr 2014WP/17097/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a university order denying admission approval and result declaration due to the college's failure to submit documents on time. The High Court allowed the petitions, imposed a penalty on the college, and directed the university to approve admissions and announce results immediately.

What did the court decide?

Annexure A quashed; Institution to pay Rs. 2,000 per student; University to approve admissions, announce results immediately, and permit supplementary and next year's examinations.

Anupriya James Vs State of Karnataka — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 05^TH DAY OF APRIL 2014

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION Nos. 17097-17099 OF 2014 (EDN-AD)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Anupriya James, Daughter of Mr. James K.J, Aged about 31 years, Residing at Kallumootil (H) Niranam, North (PO), Thiruvalla, Pathanamthitta, Kerala State.

¶9

Krishnendhu K.G, Daughter of Mr. Gopi K.K, Aged about 23 years, Residing at Mambrethu (H), Nranammoozith (PO), Thonikkadavu, Ranni, Pathanamthitta, Kerala State.

¶10

Vineetha Joseph, Daughter of Mr. Ouseph V.T, Aged about 25 years, Residing at Olikkara (H), Ayyappancovil (PO)

¶11

¶12

Mattukkatta, Idukki, Kerala State.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(By Shri. H.N. Shashidhara, Advocate ) AND:

¶15

State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary, The Department of Medical Education, Vidhana Soudha, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore – 560 001.

¶16

The Registrar, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Karnataka, 4^th ‘T’ Block, Jayanagara, Bangalore – 560 041.

¶17

The Principal, R.R. College of Nursing R.R.Educational Institutions No.40, near Chikkabanavara, Railway Station, Chikkabanavara, Bangalore – 560 090.

¶18

… RESPONDENTS

¶19

(By Shri. B. Veerappa, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.1 Shri. N.K. Ramesh, Advocate for Respondent No.2 Shri. M.N. Umashankar, Advocate for Respondent No.3)

¶20

¶21

These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order issued by the second respondent vide Annexure-A dated 7.3.2014 and to direct the respondents to declare the results of the petitioners of the 1^st year examination of PBBSC course held in the Month of August 2013.

¶22

These Writ Petitions coming on for Orders this day, the court made the following:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Shri M.N.Umashankar is directed to take notice for

¶25

respondent no.3.

¶26

Shri N.K.Ramesh is directed to take notice for respondent no.2.

¶27

Shri B.Veerappa, learned Government Advocate is

¶28

directed to take notice for respondent no.1.

¶29

T hese petitions are identical to several petitions,

¶30

which were allowed by this court and therefore, are heard and

¶31

disposed of at the stage of Preliminary Hearing.

¶32

¶33

The petitions seek to question the denial of approval of admissions to the Post Basic B.Sc Nursing Course (PB B.Sc. (N) course. The background is as follows:

¶34

The petitioners are students of the third respondent - College affiliated to the second respondent - University studying PB B.Sc.(N) course for the academic year 2012-13. By a notification dated 23.05.2012 the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences had issued admission calendar of events for the PB B.Sc.(N) course for the academic year 2012-13. The notification mandated that the Principals of colleges should submit online admission statements of the students admitted to their colleges, to the first respondent University between 05.10.2012 and 15.12.2012. Thereafter, the hard copies of admission statements along with relevant documents in original were to be submitted to the second respondent by 18.12.2012, which date was thereafter extended to 31.12.2012. Though most of the colleges adhered to the calendar of events, it transpires that the third respondent - College had not submitted

¶35

¶36

the necessary documents in terms of the notification and the reason assigned did not convince the University. The University was of the opinion that such non-compliance was a gross negation of academic discipline. However, it convened a meeting of the erring institutions, including the third respondent institution, on 14.08.2013 where it was indicated that any discrepancy found in the admission statements would result in the students’ admission not being approved. And the University provisionally permitted the students admitted to appear for the examination held from 21.08.2013 onwards. But it was on a condition that the results of the examination of such students would be announced subject to the approval of their admission.

¶37

It is the case of the University that the institution had failed to comply with the directions and failed to submit the admission statements in time. Though documents were sought to be submitted belatedly, the same was not taken into account since the University had already taken a decision not to approve the admissions of those students whose papers had not been

¶38

¶39

submitted. Though the discrepancies that were noticed by the University were subsequently corrected, the University had not approved the admissions of the students since the documents were not furnished in time. It is on a matter of principle that the University has refused to approve the admissions. It is in this background that the petitioners are before this court.

¶40

It was certainly well within the discretion of the University to deny the approval of admissions as there is clearly a default on the part of the institutions. This, however, should not result in the career of the students being jeopardized. The need for adherence to the time schedules and to fall in line with measures to maintain discipline imposed by the University cannot be over looked and be permitted to be followed only in the breach. This has to be brought home to the respective institutions. Therefore, the institution ought to be appropriately penalized, as a reminder to prevent the institutions from repeating such indiscretion and laxity on their part.

¶41

¶42

Accordingly, the third respondent institution is liable

¶43

to pay a penalty of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) for each student, whose admission was pending approval on account of non-submission of the papers by the institutions. On payment of such fee by the Institution, which shall exclusively bear the liability and shall not be passed on to the students by the institution, the second respondent University shall grant approval of admissions, on such payment of penalty, if everything is found to be in order.

¶44

With that observation, the petitions stand allowed. Annexure-“A” is quashed.

¶45

The second respondent University is directed to approve the admission of the petitioners/students and announce their results immediately, since the next examination is due on 08.04.2014. The petitioners shall also be accommodated to take the supplementary examination if they have failed in any of the subjects, apart from permitting them to take the next

¶46

¶47

year’s examination. If there is any default on the part of the institution in the future, the University may take such stringent action, as may be warranted in its discretion and it shall not be open to the institutions thereafter to approach this court in that regard.

¶48

Learned Government Advocate Sri B Veerappa is

¶49

permitted to file his memo of appearance within two weeks.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

Anupriya James v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anupriya James 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

Schneider Electric It Businees India Private Ltd. Vs Nill

M/S Pearl Metal Products (Bangalore) Private Vs Nil

M/S Pearl Insulations Private Limited Vs Nil

Bilu C Scaria Vs the State of Karnataka

Ms D Souiza Vilma Alex Vs the State of Karnataka

Narasoji Rao Vs Bangalore Development Authority