Dismissed

R Manoharan v. the Karnataka State Law University

Karnataka HC11 Jun 2018WA/1151/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this intra-court appeal, the appellant challenged the Single Judge's order dismissing his petition seeking an opportunity to clear a failed law subject. The High Court held that the university had a right to regulate admission duration and examination rules, dismiss appeal.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed without interference in the order of the learned Single Judge.

R Manoharan Vs the Karnataka State Law University — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

W.A.No.1151/2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^th DAY OF JUNE, 2018

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NO.1151/2018 (EDN-EX)

¶9

BETWEEN :

¶10

R. MANOHARAN S/O RAMASWAMY AGED 34 YEARS R/OF MATHIRETTIPATTI VARIKKAPATTI (PO) MOOLAPATTI (VIA) ARAVAKURICHI TALUK KARUR DISTRICT TAMIL NADU-639109 ... APPELLANT (BY SRI B M BALIGA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND

¶12

THE KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY NAVANAGAR, HUBLI-580025 REP BY ITS REGISTRAR (EVALUATION)

¶13

THE PRINCIPAL ARUNODAYA INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES NO.78, 80 FEET RING ROAD MARIYAPPANA PALYA JNANA BHARATHI POST BENGALURU-560056

¶14

M MUNIRAJ S/O R MUNUSWAMY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

¶15

¶16

W.A.No.1151/2018

¶17

R/O HIG-373, TNHB JASMINE COTTAGE VENNAMPATTI COLLECTORATE (POST) DHARMAPURI (DIST) TAMIL NADU-636705

¶18

S NAGARAJ S/O C K SUBBAIAH AGED 47 YEARS R/O DR. AMBEDKAR MIDDLE STREET ALLINAGARAM, THENI THENI DISTRICT TAMIL NADU-625531

¶19

5 P A SRIDHARAN S/O ANNAMALAI AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/O 144/160, UTTIRAPPAN NAGAR FERUMAL KOIL STREET NANIYANOOR POST, SALEM TAMIL NADU-636010

¶20

R SRINIVASA RAGHAVAN S/O RAMAN A AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS PRESENTLY R/O 7/710 RADHAKRISHNA STREET NGO COLONY, NAGAMALAI MADURAI-625019 ... RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI GANAPATHY BHAT VAJRALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; R-2 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

¶22

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.12.2017 IN WP NOS.49597-49601/2017 AND IN RESPECT OF W.P.NO.49598/2017 FILED BY THIS APPELLANT AND CONSEQUENTLY TO ALLOW WRIT PETITION NO.49598/2017 FILED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS COURT.

¶23

THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.A.No.1151/2018

JUDGMENT

Having regard to the submissions made, the matter is considered on its merits, while ignoring the question of delay.

¶28

By way of this intra Court appeal, the appellant, who was petitioner No.2 in Writ Petition Nos.49597-49601/2017, seeks to question the order dated 07.12.2017, whereby the learned Single Judge has declined to interfere with the Circular dated 04/05.04.2017 issued by the respondent – Karnataka State Law University in regard to the clarification for appearance of the students admitted to LL.B course in the years 2009 and 2010, while restricting their chance for further appearance in the examination.

¶29

The relevant background aspects of the matter are as follows:

¶30

The petitioner/appellant was admitted to three year LL.B course of the respondent-University in the academic year 2010-11. It appears that the petitioner/appellant, despite having been extended several opportunities and having been repeatedly allowed to appear in the examination, could not

¶31

¶32

W.A.No.1151/2018

¶33

clear the course even until the year 2017. Then, the said circular dated 04/05.04.2017 came to be issued by the respondent –University that reads as under:

¶34

“Circular

¶35

To,

¶36

The Principals, All affiliated law colleges of Karnataka State Law University Hubballi.

¶37

Sub: Clarification regarding 2009 and 2010 batch students appearing for the next ensuing examination.

¶38

Respected Sir/Madam,

¶39

With reference to the above subject, it is to inform your kind self that, as per the existing Regulation of 3 year LL.B course and also as per the resolution of the 59^th Syndicate meeting, students of 2009 batch of 3 year LL.B shall not be permitted to appear for the next ensuing examination (i.e. June/July-2017 exam).

¶40

Further, it is to clarify that 2010 batch students are permitted to appear for the next ensuing examination (i.e. June/July-2017 exam) to pass all the remaining subjects, otherwise he/she will lose their studentship as per the existing regulation. Hence, the same shall be brought to the notice of all the concerned students and office staff of your college.

¶41

Registrar (Evaluation) I/C”

¶42

Looking to the stipulations in the circular aforesaid and

¶43

in the overall circumstances, the learned Single Judge

¶44

¶45

W.A.No.1151/2018

¶46

observed that the Court would not sit in judgment over the stipulations and standards sought to be regulated and maintained by the University; and that the Court would not permit the students to appear in the examination contrary to the regulations and stipulations of the University. The learned Single Judge, therefore, dismissed the writ petitions filed by the petitioner/appellant along with four other students.

¶47

Seeking to question the order so passed by the learned Single Judge, learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously argued that the petitioner/appellant has cleared all the papers except one i.e., ‘Interpretation of Statutes and Principles of Legislation’; and ought to have been extended one opportunity to take the examination and to complete the course. Learned counsel would submit that the students of 2009-10 batch were given repeated opportunities, not only to the extent of 7 years, but they were allowed yet another year to clear the course and the same treatment ought to have been given to the candidates like the appellant of the year 2010-11.

¶48

¶49

W.A.No.1151/2018

¶50

Learned counsel would also argue that the circular in question was issued only in the month of April, 2017 limiting the chance of 2010-11 batch students for the next ensuing examination in the months of June/July, 2017 and the time available under the said circular was so short and inadequate that a candidate like the petitioner/appellant hailing from the State of Tamilnadu could not have possibly prepared himself for the examination. With these submissions, learned counsel has made fervent appeal to allow another one as the last chance to the petitioner/appellant.

¶51

Learned counsel for the respondent –University has, per contra, duly supported the order of the learned Single Judge with the submissions that the standards of legal education, as laid down by the Bar Council of India, are scrupulously followed by the respondent –University and if the appellant has failed to avail of the repeated chances already given, no further chance could be extended to him contrary to the regulations.

¶52

Having given anxious consideration to the submissions made and having examined the matter in its totality, we are

¶53

¶54

W.A.No.1151/2018

¶55

not persuaded to consider interference in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶56

It remains trite that no legal right could be claimed in the matters of education contrary to the regulations of the University. In the present case, the above quoted circular dated 04/05.04.2017 makes it clear that even while providing that 2009 batch of three year LL.B course students would not be permitted to appear in the ensuing examination of June/July, 2017, the University still extended one more opportunity to the 2010 batch students to appear in the said examination of June/July, 2017.

¶57

The said circular was issued in the very first week of the month of April, 2017. In the given set of facts, we are not impressed by the submissions made on behalf of the appellant that lesser time was available under the said circular to prepare for the examination in the month of June/July, 2017.

¶58

The petitioner/appellant, who had been continuing in the three year LL.B course ever since the year 2010, could not have possibly asked for any more relaxation than that

¶59

¶60

W.A.No.1151/2018

¶61

extended by the respondent –University i.e., of yet another and final chance to appear for the examination in the month of June/July, 2017. The attempt on the part of the appellant now to seek another opportunity and thereby allowing the batch of 2010-11 to remain in currency as yet neither appears to be in conformity with the regulations of the University nor could be countenanced.

¶62

In our view, the conscious decision taken by the University to regulate and maintain the standards of legal education as per the directions of the Bar Council of India remains unexceptionable and no relaxation contrary to such a decision could be extended.

¶63

In view of the above, this appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed.

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

bkv

R Manoharan v. the Karnataka State Law University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R Manoharan v. the Karnataka State Law University

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

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri a. S. Katti Mandaiah

Sri.T.S.Viswanathan Vs Bank of Baroda

The State of Karnataka Vs Smt. Kamalamma

Sri.K.Chandrashekar Vs Ramakrishna T

Anupama Shenoy Vs Union of India

Sri v Vinod D Kamath Vs Sri Preeth Hegde