Allowed

Sani J v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC26 Feb 2014WP/37795/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sixty-four students challenging the rejection of their college's affiliation application filed writ petitions. The court allowed them to appear for examinations without impacting the final affiliation status, directed the State to conduct a Section 45(5) enquiry, and ordered result announcements and supplementary exams.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners allowed to take examination; State directed to hold Section 45(5) enquiry; University directed to announce results and permit supplementary exams.

Sani J Vs State of Karnataka — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

�

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 26^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY WRIT PETITION NOS.37795 TO 37812 OF 2013 (EDN-EX)

¶6

Between:

¶7

Sani J

¶8

D/o Samuel Y.Japamani Aged about 20 years

¶9

Sansam Hena Devi D/o Biren Singh Aged about 20 years

¶10

Samiksha Tewari D/o Nanisab Tewari , Aged about 18 years

¶11

Sapna Thapa Magar D/o Radha Krishna, Aged about 18 years

¶12

Sawali Kalpana D/o Kandou Rai Aged about 18 years

¶13

Sheeja A Chacko D/o Checko Aged about 18 years

¶14

�

¶15

Shilvy P

¶16

D/o Kunjappan

¶17

Aged about 18 years

¶18

Sibi P J

¶19

S/o Jose,

¶20

Aged about 18 years

¶21

Shilpa Mol

¶22

D/o Balachandran, Aged about 18 years

¶23

10.Singdamla T D/o Ringthami, Aged about 18 years

¶24

Sneha Vasidevan D/o Vasudevan, Aged about 18 years

¶25

12.Sunitha Rai D/o Manu Kumar, Aged about 18 years

¶26

13.Thanku Thomas D/o Thomas, Aged about 18 years

¶27

Victoria T D/o Thavan,

¶28

Aged about 18 years

¶29

15.Viji V Rajan D/o Rajan Abraham, Aged about 18 years

¶30

16.V Shabnam Bardeva D/o Bardeva Aged about 18 years

¶31

�

¶32

Jyothi Joshva D/o Joshva,

¶33

Aged about 18 years

¶34

18.Lisna K Kutty D/o Keshavan,

¶35

Aged about 18 years

¶36

All are students of Hosmat College of Nursing No.45/1, Magrath Road, Bangalore – 560025 .… Petitioners (By Sri.Amaresh N., Adv.) And:

¶37

State of Karnataka

¶38

Rep. by its Secretary

¶39

Medical Education Department M.S.Building

¶40

Bangalore – 1

¶41

The Registrar

¶42

Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Jayanagara Bangalore – 01

¶43

Indian Nursing Council

¶44

Rep. by its Secretary

¶45

Combined Councils building New Kotla Road Temple Lane New Delhi – 2

¶46

Karnataka State Nursing Council Rep. by its Registrar Nightingale Towers

¶47

�

¶48

6^th Cross, Gandhinagar Bangalore – 9

¶49

The Principal

¶50

Hosmat College of Nursing No.45/1, Magrath Road,

¶51

Bangalore – 560025 … Respondents

¶52

(Ms.Shwetha Krishnappa, HCGP for R1 Sri.S.G.Pandit, Adv. for R2 Sri.Shivarudra, Adv. for R3 and R4 Notice to R5 served and unrepresented)

¶53

¶54

These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5 to approve the admission of the petitioners to PB B.Sc(N) Course for the academic year 201213 at the 5^th respondent College and etc.

¶55

These Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the Court made the following:-

¶56

O R D E R

¶57

The present petitions are filed by the students who are pursuing their Post Basic Bachelor of Science Nursing course at the

¶58

5^th respondent – College. It transpires that the College has submitted an application to the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, namely, the 2^nd respondent and the Indian Nursing Council, namely, the 3^rd respondent, seeking affiliation to start the

¶59

�

¶60

course from the academic year 2012-13 and the application is said to have been made on 12.12.2011 and it is thereafter that the students were admitted to the course and have completed two years of their course. In the meanwhile, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 who are the competent authorities to inspect the infrastructural facilities as well as the adherence to the curriculum, have submitted their reports to the State Government as regards due compliance by the 5^th respondent – Institution. However, it transpires that the State Government has thought it fit to reject the application for affiliation and it is at that stage that the present petitions are taken up for further hearing. Based on the statement made by the learned Government Pleader, on instructions received, that the affiliation sought for by the 5^th respondent – College has been rejected, that the matter is now considered.

¶61

It is evident that on the 2^nd respondent as well as the 3^rd respondent were satisfied with the requirements that were to be met by the 5^th respondent and if favourable reports were submitted normally, it would be for the State Government to accept the same

¶62

�

¶63

and to grant affiliation. If, for any reason, the State Government is not inclined to grant affiliation, it ought to have held an enquiry under Section 45(5) of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for brevity) and to pass appropriate orders. There is no indication that any such notice has been issued to the 5^th respondent or any such enquiry has been contemplated. The students having completed the course substantially, are now required to undergo a three months training course and thereafter to take the examination which is to be held

¶64

soon. In that view of the matter, it would be appropriate that the students who have almost completed their course, are permitted to take the examination, subject to further orders to be passed by the State Government pursuant to an enquiry to be held under Section 45(5) of the Act, upon notice to the 5^th respondent – College and an appropriate order shall be passed more before the commencement

¶65

of the next academic year in August 2014. With that direction, petitions are allowed. Petitioners shall be permitted to take examination in terms as above. It is also stated that several students are to take up supplementary examinations in the event they are

¶66

�

¶67

found to have failed in certain subjects, as the results were withheld subject to the outcome of these writ petitions. On account of the writ petitions having disposed of, the University is directed to announce the results of the students and permit the students to take supplementary examinations wherever it is found that they have

¶68

failed.

¶69

Sd/JUDGE

¶70

Sani J v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sani J 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

M S Suregaonkar Vs the Mysore Kirloskar Ltd.

M Somanatharadhya Vs the Mysore Kirloskar Ltd.

K M Shankar Murthy Vs the Official Liquidator

Jolly John Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Chikkamuniswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Remya K R Vs State of Karnataka