Allowed

Kum. Madhuri S v. Karnataka State Law University

Karnataka HC9 Sept 2022WP/4560/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed a writ petition seeking admission to a 3-Year LLB course. The Court held that the petitioner, having completed a B.Com degree from Karnataka State Open University (KSOU) before the UGC de-recognized the university, was entitled to pursue LLB despite the rejection of her application by the affiliating university.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; respondents directed to admit petitioner to 3-Year LLB course within three weeks.

Kum. Madhuri S Vs Karnataka State Law University — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.4560 OF 2020 (EDN-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

KUM. MADHURI S D/O SANJEEVA M AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, H.NO.54, SUKRITI NILAYA 3^RD CROSS, 1^ST MAIN ROAD BEHIND LALITHA MAHAL ADAKIMARANAHALLI DASANAPURA HOBLI MAKALI POST, BENGALURU - 562 123.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. A. RAVISHANKAR., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

1 . KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR NAVANAGARA HUBBALI - 580 025

¶11

2 . KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR MUKTHA GANGOTHRI MYSURU - 570 006

¶12

3 . SARVODAYA LAW COLLEGE REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL NO.867, VASANTHA COMPLEX, DR MODI HOSPITAL ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR,

¶13

BENGALURU - 560 004.

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPT. OF HIGHER EDUCATION REP. BY ITS SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶15

²

¶16

(AMENDED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED: 13.03.2020)

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. GANAPATHI BHAT VAJRALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 SRI. T.P. RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 SMT. A.R. SHARADAMBA., AGA FOR R-4 R-3 IS SERVED)

¶19

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT 20.09.19 PASSED BY THE R-1 IS AT ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.

¶20

THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶21

ORDER

¶22

In this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order at Annexure-G dated 20.09.2019 passed by the 1^st respondent – KSLU and for other reliefs.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶24

In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner joined Karnataka State Open University for Bachelor of Commerce (B.Com) course and passed all her exams and

¶25

³

¶26

completed the course in June / July, 2015 as can be seen from the Marks cards produced by the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner applied for admission to 3 Year LLB course in the year 2019 in respondent No.3-College, which is affiliated to respondent No.1-Karnataka State Law University (KSLU). It is submitted that on 23.02.2018, the UGC issued a Public Notice declaring that Degrees/Diplomas/Certificates awarded through distance mode was on par with corresponding Degrees/Diplomas/Certificates obtained through formal mode of education, pursuant to which, the UGC issued a letter dated 03.10.2018 recognizing courses in the KSOU and the same was confirmed/affirmed by the UGC vide order dated 08.05.2019. It is also pointed out that on 05.03.2018, the respondent No.4-State passed an order to the effect that all students who graduate from 2013-14 and 2014-15 batches of the KSOU would be entitled/eligible for subsequent admission.

¶27

3.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.1-KSLU has erroneously placed reliance upon the Public Notice dated 16.06.2015 for the purpose of

¶28

⁴

¶29

refusing to approve the admission of the petitioner to the respondent No.3-College. In this context, learned counsel points out that the said public notice dated 16.06.2015 issued by the UGC was not applicable to the students who have enrolled and taken admission prior to 16.06.2015. It is submitted that since the de-recognition of the KSOU by the UGC vide public notice dated 16.06.2015 was prospective and not retrospective and the same was not applicable to the petitioner, who has undisputedly obtained admission in the year 2013-14 itself and the admission of the petitioner into the KSOU was legal, valid and proper. It is submitted that respondent No.1-KSLU was not justified in placing reliance upon the public notice dated 16.06.2015 and issued the impugned communication dated 20.09.2019 rejecting the admission of the petitioner to the respondent No.3 - college. It is therefore submitted that the impugned communication deserves to be quashed and necessary directions are to be issued to respondent Nos.1 and 3 to admit her to respondent No.3-College and allow her to pursue her LLB degree by taking necessary steps in this regard.

¶30

⁵

¶31

3.2 It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the respondent No.1-KSLU has proceeded to issue the impugned communication dated 20.09.2019 rejecting the request of the petitioner for admission to the respondent No.3-College and as such, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶32

3.3 Learned counsel further submits that on an earlier occasion, petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.No.43618/2019 which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 17.02.2020. However, this Court reserved liberty in favour of the petitioner to request the respondent No.1 to consider the Degree obtained from KSOU by the petitioner. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the following judgments of this Court:

¶33

a) Smt. Gangamma and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others – W.P.No.32792/2019 dated 03.08.2022.

¶34

b) Sri. Thirumalesh Vs. State of Karnataka and others – W.P.No.2975/2022 dated 02.08.2022.

¶35

⁶

¶36

c) Sri.Uthaiah K.N. vs. State of Karnataka

¶37

and others – W.P.No.15202/2022 dated 23.08.2022;

¶38

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶39

I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

¶40

A perusal of the impugned communication at Annexure-G dated 20.09.2019 will indicate that the only ground on which respondent No.1-KSLU has refused to approve the admission of the petitioner to the respondent No.3-College is on the ground that the respondent No.2 - KSOU was de-recognized by the UGC vide Public Notice dated 16.06.2015. In this context, it is relevant to state that the material on record discloses that the petitioner joined Karnataka State Open University for Bachelor of Commerce (B.Com) course and passed all her exams and completed the course in June / July 2015; further, petitioner applied for admission to 3 Year LLB course in respondent

¶41

⁷

¶42

No.3-College which is affiliated to respondent No.1Karnataka State Law University (KSLU); so also, on 23.02.2018, the UGC issued a Public Notice declaring that Degrees/Diplomas/Certificates awarded through distance mode including those awarded by the KSOU were on par with corresponding Degrees/Diplomas/Certificates obtained through formal mode of education, pursuant to which the UGC also issued a letter dated 03.10.2018 recognizing courses in the KSOU and the same was confirmed/affirmed by the UGC vide order dated 08.05.2019; it is also seen that on 05.03.2018, the respondent No.4-State has passed an order to the effect that all students who graduated from 2013-14 and 2014-15 batches of the KSOU would be entitled/eligible for subsequent admission. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the respondent No.1-KSLU clearly fell in error in refusing the admission of the petitioner to respondent No.3-College by assigning arbitrary and illegal reasons which cannot be countenanced in law.

¶43

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for petitioner, the said Public Notice dated 16.06.2015 issued

¶44

⁸

¶45

by the UGC was not applicable to the students who have enrolled and taken admission prior to 16.06.2015; further, since the de-recognition of the KSOU by the UGC vide Public Notice dated 16.06.2015 was prospective and not retrospective, the same was not applicable to the petitioner, who has undisputedly completed the B.Com course in June / July 2015 itself, as held by this Court in the aforesaid decisions and consequently, the admission of the petitioner into the KSOU being legal, valid and proper, the said public notice dated 16.06.2015 could not have been made the basis by the respondent No.1-KSLU to refuse to approve the admission of the petitioner to respondent No.3-College and as such, the impugned communication deserves to be quashed on this ground also.

¶46

In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned communication/letter vide Annexure-G dated 20.09.2019 issued by respondent No.1-KSLU deserves to be quashed and necessary directions are to be issued to respondent Nos.1 and 3 to accept and approve the admission of petitioner to respondent No.3-College for 3 Year LLB

¶47

⁹

¶48

Course and permit her to be admitted to the respondent No.3 – college for the said purpose.

¶49

In the result, I pass the following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

(i) Petition is hereby allowed.

¶52

(ii) The impugned order at Annexure-G dated

¶53

20.09.2019 passed by the respondent No.1 – Karnataka State Law University is hereby quashed.

¶54

(iii) The respondents Nos.1 and 3 are hereby directed to accept and approve the admission of the petitioner in respondent No.3 - College and allow her to pursue 3 Year LLB degree and take necessary steps in this regard in favour of the petitioner in accordance with law forthwith and at any rate within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

JUDGE

¶57

Srl.

Kum. Madhuri S v. Karnataka State Law University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kum. Madhuri S v. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Basaveshwara Stone Crushers (P) Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Ascendas Service (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Tax

M/S Himalaya Drug Company Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-Ii)

Gmr Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Assistant Director of Income Tax

Smt.Venkamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri D Shivkumar Vs Karnataka State Law University