Allowed

Aswathi Mohan v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Apr 2014WP/17156/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed writ petitions challenging a university's denial of admission approval to nursing students. The court held that while the university is justified in penalizing the errant college for non-compliance, student careers cannot be jeopardized. The college was ordered to pay a penalty, and the university directed to approve admissions and conduct supplementary exams.

What did the court decide?

The college directed to pay Rs. 2,000 penalty per student; University to approve admissions, allow supplementary and next year's exams, and announce results.

Aswathi Mohan Vs the State of Karnataka — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF APRIL 2014

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION Nos.17156-17159 OF 2014 (EDN-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Aswathi Mohan, Daughter of P. Mohanan, Aged about 30 years, Residing at Chanthalakunnel, Perumpanachy P.O, Changananssery, Kottayam (Dist) Kerala State.

¶9

Jinu Jose, Daughter of Jose Kurian, Aged about 25 years, Residing at Paituthara, Puthenpura (H), Puthukary, Mithrakary (P.O.) Alappuzha (Dist) Kerala State.

¶10

Susmitha K.K, Daughter of Balakrishnan T.V, Aged about 24 years, Residing at Nappachal,

¶11

¶12

Kilayicode (P.O.) Cherruvathur – 671 313. Kerala State.

¶13

Prativa Shah Daughter of Madan Prasad Shah, Aged about 22 years, Residing at Tinkuna, Subidha Nagar, Kathmandu, Nepal.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

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

¶16

The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary, Department of Medical Education, Vidhana Soudha, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore – 560 001. 2. The Registrar, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Karnataka, 4^th ‘T’ Block, Jayanagara, Bangalore – 560 041.

¶17

The Principal, Karavali College of Nursing Science, NH-17, near Kottara Chowki, Bangalore – 575 013.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

¶20

(By Shri. N.K. Ramesh, Advocate for Respondent No.2 Smt. Prathima Honnapur, Government Pleader for Respondent No.1)

¶21

¶22

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; quash the order issued by the second respondent vide Annexure-B dated 30.7.2013 and direct the second respondent to declare the results of the petitioners of the I year examination of PBBSC and Bsc., Nursing courses held in the month of August 2013.

¶23

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

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

Shri N.K.Ramesh, is directed to take notice to respondent

¶26

no.2 – University.

¶27

The Government Pleader is directed to take notice to respondent no.1.

¶28

These petitions seek to question the denial of approval

¶29

of admissions to the PB B.Sc. (N) course. The background is as follows:

¶30

The petitioners are students of the third respondent - College affiliated to the second respondent – University,

¶31

¶32

studying PB B.Sc.(Nursing) course for the academic year 201213. 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-

¶33

The notification mandated that the Principals of colleges should submit online admission statements of the students admitted to their colleges, to the second 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 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 noncompliance was a gross negation of academic discipline. However, it convened a meeting of the erring institutions,

¶34

¶35

including the third respondent - institution, on 14.08.2013, wherein 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.

¶36

It is the case of the University that the institution had

¶37

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 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

¶38

¶39

the University has refused to approve the admissions. It is in

¶40

this background that the petitioners are before this court.

¶41

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

¶42

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.

¶43

Accordingly, the third respondent - institution is

¶44

liable 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.

¶45

¶46

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. With this observation the petitions stand allowed. Annexures A and B are quashed.

¶47

The first respondent - University is directed to approve the admission of the petitioners/students and announce their results immediately. 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 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

¶49

It is however to be noticed that since the examinations have already commenced to-day, any order passed herein shall only enure to the benefit of the petitioners only in respect of the remaining papers, provided that the petitioners are able to secure the certified copy of this order and produce the same before the respondents.

¶50

Learned Government Pleader Smt.Prathima Honnapura is

¶51

permitted to file her memo of appearance within two weeks.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

Aswathi Mohan v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aswathi Mohan v. the 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

Sheelavanth M I Vs the Official Liquidator

Golflinks Software Parks Private Limited Vs Nil

M/S Tulsyan Smelters Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Unitech Valdel

Mohammed Ghouse Vs Bangalore Development Authority

Sri S. Sundaraj Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Venkataswamy Reddy Vs State of Karnataka