Allowed

Rev. Noorunnissa College v. the Registrar

Karnataka HC7 Apr 2014WP/17329/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, a nursing college and its students, approached the High Court challenging the University's denial of admission approval due to procedural lapses. The Court allowed the petitions, imposed a penalty on the college payable by the institution, and directed the University to admit students and conduct examinations.

What did the court decide?

Imposition of Rs.2,000 penalty payable by the college per student and direction to University to approve admissions, announce results, and permit supplementary examinations.

Rev. Noorunnissa College Vs the Registrar — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 07^TH DAY OF APRIL 2014

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION Nos.17329-17359 OF 2014 (EDN-EX)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Rev. Noorunnissa College of Nursing A1-Hajma Noorunnissa Road, Andersonpet, KGF – 563 113.

¶9

Represented by its Principal,

¶10

Smt. Angayarkanni K.

¶11

Abily James, Daughter of James Joseph, Aged 27 years,

¶12

Alex Joy, Son of Joy Paulose, Aged 27 years,

¶13

Ambily George, Daughter of George K.L. Aged 32 years,

¶14

Miss Ambily V.C., Daughter of Calictus, Aged 26 years,

¶15

¶16

6.	Baisy James, Daughter of James Joseph, Aged 23 years,
7.	Miss. Blessy Baby, Daughter of Baby Kutty, Aged 32 years,
8.	Miss Bobby Jose, Daughter of Jose Jacob, Aged 27 years,
9.	Miss Deepthi, Daughter of William Premkumar, Aged 25 years,
10.	Elizbeth P John, Daughter of P. P. John, Aged 27 years,
11.	Miss Huidrom Suliva Devi, Daughter of Huidorm Biramani Singh, Aged 28 years,
12.	Miss Jins George, Daughter of George K.P., Aged 25 years,
13.	Jovin.K, Son of Kuriachan P.O., Aged 25 years,
14.	Joy Mathai,
	Daughter of K.C.Mathai,

¶17

¶18

Aged 27 years,

¶19

Miss Kavitha, Daughter of Narayan Rai, Aged 22 years,

¶20

Miss Maya K.G., Daughter of Gopalakrishnan K.V., Aged 27 years,

¶21

Miss Neethu Jhony, Daughter of Johny P.A., Aged 23 years,

¶22

Miss Reena Mathew, Daughter of Mathew Thomas, Aged 28 years,

¶23

Miss Renimol P.T., Daughter of P.T. Thomas, Aged 24 years,

¶24

Miss Reshma, Daughter of Jalaluddin, Aged 34 years,

¶25

Miss Salio Vincent, Daughter of Vincent P.C., Aged 23 years,

¶26

Miss Shameema, Daughter of Md. Jalaloddin, Aged 27 years,

¶27

Miss Sheeba Jayarani,

¶28

¶29

Daughter of Ravi Kumar,

¶30

Aged 25 years,

¶31

Simon Rajkumar, Son of Jayaraj Y, Aged 29 years,

¶32

Soojan Peter, Son of K. Peter, Aged 25 years,

¶33

Miss Sunumol Anthony A.V., Daughter of Anthony A.V., Aged 26 years,

¶34

Tarvin Banu, Daughter of Mohamad Jalaluddin, Aged 30 years,

¶35

Raji Babu .B, Daughter of Babu .K, Aged 27 years,

¶36

Miss Tintu Mol K, Daughter of Krishnan Nair, Aged 29 years,

¶37

Tojo Mon Joseph, Daughter of T.J. Joseph, Aged 27 years,

¶38

Trincy Kuriokose, Daughter of Kuriokose, Aged 26 years,

¶39

¶40

Petitioners 2 to 31 are the Second year PC.BSc., students First petitioner college.

¶41

…PETITIONERS

¶42

(By Shri. Shivarudra, Advocate )

¶43

AND:

¶44

The Registrar, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, 4^th T Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore – 560 041.

¶45

State of Karnataka, Represented by the Secretary, Department of Medical Education, Vikas Soudha, Bangalore – 560 001.

¶46

…RESPONDENTS

¶47

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

¶48

¶49

These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash Annexure-B order dated 7.3.2014 issued by the first respondent and to direct the respondent to approve the admission declare the results of the student petitioners and permit the petitioners students to take up supplementary exam in failed subjects commencing very shortly.

¶50

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

¶51

¶52

O R D E R

¶53

Shri N.K.Ramesh takes notice for respondent no.1.

¶54

Sri B.Veerappa, Government Advocate takes notice for respondent no.2.

¶55

2 . T hese petitions are identical to several petitions,

¶56

which were allowed by this court and therefore, are heard and disposed of at the stage of Orders.

¶57

The petitions seek to question the denial of approval

¶58

of admissions to the Post Basic B.Sc Nursing Course (PB B.Sc.

¶59

(N) course. The background is as follows:

¶60

The first petitioner is the college affiliated to the first respondent - University and petitioners – 2 to 31 are the students 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-

¶61

¶62

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 by the petitioner – College to the first 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 petitioner - 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, including the first petitioner - 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

¶63

¶64

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.

¶65

It is the case of the University that the institution had

¶66

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

¶67

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 the University has refused to approve the admissions. It is in this background that the petitioners are before this court.

¶68

It was certainly well within the discretion of the

¶69

University to deny the approval of admissions as there is clearly

¶70

¶71

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.

¶72

Accordingly, the first petitioner - institution is 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. 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 first respondent University shall grant approval of admissions, on such payment of penalty, if everything is found to be in order.

¶73

¶74

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

¶75

The first 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 petitioner- students 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.

¶76

Learned Government Advocate Shri B.Veerappa is

¶77

permitted to file his memo of appearance within two weeks.

¶78

Sd/JUDGE

¶79

Rev. Noorunnissa College v. the Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rev. Noorunnissa College v. the Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bilu C Scaria Vs the State of Karnataka

Anupriya James Vs State of Karnataka

Ms D Souiza Vilma Alex Vs the State of Karnataka

Kum Anitha Sali Vs the Common Law Admisstion Test

Dr Satheesh S R Vishwakarma Vs Bangalore Medical College

K. Mahadeva Vs the State of Karnataka