Allowed

Manohara B M v. Vidyodaya Law College

Karnataka HC1 Apr 2014WP/49884/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A law student filed a writ petition seeking condonation of default for non-payment of fees and absence from the second semester. The Court permitted the petitioner to appear for subsequent semesters an earlier interim order and ordered the University to announce results and allow completion of the course.

What did the court decide?

The default and irregularity were condoned and regularized; the University was directed to announce the results of the Third Semester examination and permit the petitioner to take the remaining examin

Manohara B M Vs Vidyodaya Law College — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2014

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION No. 49884 OF 2013 (EDN-EX)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Manohara. B.M S/o Mallappa B P @ Mallaiah B.P. Aged about 20 years, Belladamadu village, Dabbegatta (Post) Madhugiri Taluk Tumkur District Pin-572112.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(By Shri. Murali Krishna, K.R. , Advocate)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Vidyodaya Law College, B.H.Road, Tumkur-572102 Represented by its Principal,

¶13

Karnataka State Law University,

¶14

¶15

Navanagar, Hubli Pin-580025 Represented by its Vice Chancellor,

¶16

Karnataka State Law University, Navanagar, Hubli Pin-580025 Represented by its Registrar, (Evaluation)

¶17

… RESPONDENTS

¶18

(By Shri. Javed Ahmed Khan, Advocate for R2 & 3 Shri. Ganapathi Bhat, Advocate for R2, R1- Served and unrepresented)

¶19

¶20

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to Call for the records pertaining to case of the petitioner from the respondents and etc.

¶21

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

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶24

learned counsel for the respondents.

¶25

¶26

The petitioner is a student of the five-year law course

¶27

and is said to have completed the First Semester examination and had not been able to take up the Second Semester examination since he was not able to pay the examination fee. It is stated that though he tried to pay the examination fee for

¶28

the Second Semester belatedly, it was refused by the authorities. However, the College had permitted him to attend the classes of the Third Semester but he was not permitted to take up the examination. The petitioner having been refused permission to take up the examination, this Court by its interim order dated 18.12.2013, had permitted him to take the Third semester examination, though the results have been withheld on the ground that the petitioner could not have been permitted to take the Third Semester examination, as in the eye of law, he has not attended the Second Semester examination and has not paid the fee for the Second Semester examination. Therefore, he is disentitled to take the examinations either of the Third,

¶29

¶30

Fourth or Fifth semesters. It is for this reason that the results have been withheld.

¶31

Having regard to the fact that this Court had permitted

¶32

by its interim order to take the Third Semester examination, it is

¶33

deemed that the lapse on the part of the petitioner in not having paid the fees in time was not a significant violation of the Regulations, though the learned counsel for the respondent – University is justified in contending that the express rule would

¶34

prevent a candidate from taking the Third Semester examination if he has not taken the Second semester examination and he would also have to satisfy the requirement of attendance apart from payment of fees of the examination.

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioner on this, would

¶36

state that the petitioner has the attendance for the Second Semester and he was also eligible to take the Second Semester examination. It was due to unavoidable circumstances that he

¶37

¶38

was not able to pay the fees in time. It is in this background that this Court had permitted him to take the Third Semester examination.

¶39

Having regard to this situation and the peculiar facts of

¶40

this case, while there is justification in the University having refused the permission to the petitioner to take the Third semester examination, the petitioner having taken the examination already, the matter would have to be taken to its logical conclusion. Accordingly, the default if any on the part of the petitioner and the irregularity in having taken the Third semester examination without taking the Second semester examination is condoned and regularized. Consequently, the University shall announce the results of the Third semester examination. Having regard to the further circumstance that the petitioner has already taken the Second semester and has cleared all the papers except one, it would be in the fitness of things if the University should permit him to take the said

¶41

¶42

examination paper in which he has failed and to allow him to complete the course, in accordance with law.

¶43

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

Manohara B M v. Vidyodaya Law College

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manohara B M v. Vidyodaya Law College

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

H N Sadashiva Vs State of Karnataka

Ramakrishna Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. R K Krishnamma Vs State of Karnataka

Kumari Punitha L Vs the Karnataka State Diploma in

Smt. Manjula Mallesh College of Education (Bed) Vs the State of Karnataka

S Ganapathi Vs the Official Liquidator the Mysore Kirlsokar Ltd.