Allowed

Dr. Guru Prasad L v. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

Karnataka HC16 Apr 2014WP/17148/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Council allowed a petition for admission to a Post Graduate Dental Course. The court directed the University to approve the petitioner's admission because the omission of their name from the hard copy selection list was due to inadvertence.

What did the court decide?

The University was directed to approve the petitioner's admission for the Post Graduate Dental Course for the year 2011-12.

Dr. Guru Prasad L Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of… — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF APRIL 2014

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION No. 17148 OF 2014 (EDN-AD)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Dr. Guru Prasad .L, Son of Mr. Lakshmaiah, Aged about 27 years, Studying in MDS course in Oral Pathology. Studying in Vokkaligara Sangha, Dental College and Hospital, K.R.Road, V.V.Puram, Bangalore – 560 004. (By Shri. Vinod Prasad, Advocate )

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

AND:

¶11

Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, T Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore – 560 041, By its Registrar.

¶12

Vokkaligara Sangha, Dental College and Hospital,

¶13

¶14

K.R.Road, V.V.Puram, Bangalore – 560 004, By its Principal.

¶15

State of Karnataka, By it’s Secretary to Medical Education, M.S.Buildings, Bangalore – 560 001.

¶16

(By Smt. Prathima Honnapur, Government Pleader for Respondent No.3

¶17

Shri. N.K.Ramesh, Advocate for Respondent No.1)

¶18

¶19

This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences to approve the admission of the petitioner for Post Graduate Dental Course for the year 20112012 in the second respondent Vokkalirara Sangha Dental College and Hospital in their respective subjects of Pedodontics, Prosthodontics and Oral Pathology respectively.

¶20

This Writ Petition coming on for Orders this day, the court made the following:

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The learned Counsel for the respondent no.1 would

¶23

concede that in so far as petitioner no.3 in this petition is

¶24

concerned, though the petitioner’s name was found in the On-

¶25

line Selection List, it was significantly absent in the hard copy

¶26

¶27

and this was by inadvertence and hence, would submit that the petition in so far as petitioner no.3 is concerned, could be allowed and the University would take steps to approve the admission of the third petitioner.

¶28

Recording the statement of the learned Counsel for the

¶29

respondent, the petition stands allowed in so far as petitioner no.3 is concerned. The first respondent – University is directed to approve the admission of the petitioner no.3 for the PostGraduate Dental Course for the year 2011-12 in the second respondent – College.

¶30

Sd/JUDGE

¶31

Dr. Guru Prasad L v. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Guru Prasad L v. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

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

Mr Naveen Gupta Vs Abb Limited

Mr Naveen Gupta Vs Abb Limited

Mr Naveen Gupta Vs Abb Limited

Kalpatharu Vidhya Samsthe (Regd) Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Stanly Nelson P Vs Mr a Anthony Dass

Ms Shibani v Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences