Allowed

Sri. Vedanth S/O v. Sharanappa Yadavali v the Registrar-Secretary

Karnataka HC7 Aug 2024WP/100543/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A scheduled caste student admitted to a B.Arch course with 43% in PUC was rejected by VTU as below minimum qualification. Holding that the Council of Architecture circular allowed a 5% relaxation for backward classes, the High Court quashed the endorsement and directed reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

Endorsement dated 24.01.2024 quashed; VTU directed to reconsider eligibility per Annexure-A relaxation within two weeks and declare semester exam results if eligible.

Sri. Vedanth S/O v Sharanappa Yadavali Vs the… — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:11243 WP No. 100543 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.100543 OF 2024 (EDN-AD)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI VEDANTH S/O. V. SHARANAPPA YADAVALI, AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: HOUSE NO. D-60, OFFICIAL COLONY, 14^TH WARD, T B DAM HOSPET, TALUK HOSPET, DIST: BALLARI – 583 225.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI H. M. DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE REGISTRAR-SECRETARY, COUNCIL OF ARCHITECTURE, INDIA HABITAL CENTRE, CORE-6A, 1^ST FLOOR, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI – 110 003.

¶15

THE REGISTRAR, VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 590 001.

¶16

THE PRINCIPAL, JSS INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING SHRI SHIVARATRESHWAR

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC-D:11243 WP No. 100543 of 2024

¶19

NAGAR (KELAGERI), DHARWAD TALUK, DISTRICT: DHARWAD – 580 007.

¶20

THE REGISTRAR, DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION PALACE ROAD AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, SAMAPANGI RAMA NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT. RESHMA THAMMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI ANOOP DESHPANDE, ADVOCAT FOR R2; SRI RAJASHEKAR R. GUNJALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI P.N.HATTI, HCGP FOR R4)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 24-1-2024 ISSUED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT UNDER LETTER NO. IAP/DWD/276/2023-24 VIDE ANENXURE-M AND QUASH THE SCREEN SHEET NOTIFICATIONS ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-N. A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO CONTINUE WITH THE B ARCH COURSE AND ALSO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO ISSUE HALL TICKET TO THE PETITIONER FOR ATTENDING THE EXAMINATION TO BE HELD ON 29-01-2024 AND ETC.,

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:11243 WP No. 100543 of 2024

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Challenging endorsement dated 24.01.2024 issued by respondent no.3 as per Annexure-M and uploading same on web as per Annexure-N, this writ petition is filed.

¶28

Sri H.M.Dharigond, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner had passed II PUC in Science and as per marks card at Annexure-C secured 43%. It was submitted, since petitioner intended to study Bachelor of Architecture Course, appeared for National Aptitude Test in Architecture [NATA] with scorecard as per Annexure-D. It was submitted, petitioner belonged to schedule caste and having secured All India Rank no.2558, he was eligible for admission. But, respondent no.2/Visvesvaraya Technological University, Belagavi had issued impugned endorsement rejecting petitioner’s candidature on ground of educational qualification below minimum standard.

¶29

It was submitted, respondent no.1 had issued a circular as per Annexure-A on 05.06.2023 providing for relaxation by 5% in case of candidates belonging to backward castes. Referring to subsequent notification dated 19.07.2023,

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:11243 WP No. 100543 of 2024

¶31

which did not contemplate any relaxation insofar as candidates with Diploma as qualification, impugned endorsement was issued. But, as petitioner was eligible for relaxation, sought for quashing of endorsement. It was also submitted, petitioner’s admission was deemed approved by respondent no.1, in view of issuance of Enrollment Data as per document appended to I.A.no.2/2024.

¶32

Smt.Reshma Thammaiah, learned counsel for respondent no.1 at outset, would admit relaxation being available as per Annexure-A, in case, petitioner had secured more than 40%.

¶33

Sri Anoop Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent no.2 would submit if petitioner’s admission to Bachelor in Architecture Course was approved by respondent no.1, then there would be no impediment for respondent no.2 to do likewise.

¶34

Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition

¶35

record.

¶36

From above, petitioner passing PUC examination with 43% marks as per Annexure-C is not in dispute. Circular

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:11243 WP No. 100543 of 2024

¶38

at Annexure-A issued by respondent no.1 would permit relaxation with minimum academic standard by 5% in case of candidates belonging of backward class categories etc. As per caste certificate at Annexure-F, petitioner belongs to scheduled caste and therefore, would be entitled for relaxation. Document produced along with I.A.no.2/2024 would therefore be in consonance with above.

¶39

Wherefore, endorsement issued by respondent no.2 would not sustain. It is accordingly quashed. Writ petition is accordingly allowed. Respondent no.2 is directed to reconsider petitioner’s eligibility in light of relaxation at Annexure-A and educational qualification/caste certificate etc., within a period of two weeks from today. In case, petitioner is found eligible, respondent no.2 shall announce result of examinations of 1^st and 2^nd semester in which petitioner was permitted to appear as per interim orders granted in present petition.

¶40

Sd/(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶41

AM/CLK CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

Sri. Vedanth S/O v. Sharanappa Yadavali v the Registrar-Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Vedanth S/O v. Sharanappa Yadavali v the Registrar-Secretary

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

Shashidhar J. Sirdeshpande Vs the State of Karnataka

H.D. Shivaram S/O H.D. Eranna Vs Branch Manager

Sri. Balachandra S/O Shivappa Pujari Vs the State of Karnataka

Laxmi Yallappa Sungar Vs the Director

Shri. Ellappa S/O Ummajappa Vs the Hubballi-Dharwad Municipal Corporation

Smt.Kalpana Santayya Naik Vs the State of Karnataka