Disposed

Bapu v. the Registrar

Karnataka HC12 Feb 2024WP/2281/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an order declining the petitioner's request to continue his engineering course due to the eight-year outer limit for completion having elapsed during the pandemic. The Court directed the University to consider the petitioner's representation sympathetically, citing his army service and pandemic circumstances.

What did the court decide?

Direction to University to consider petitioner's representation for extension of outer limit to complete course sympathetically within four weeks.

Bapu Vs the Registrar — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:5913 WP No. 2281 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶7

WRIT PETITION No. 2281 OF 2023 (EDN-AD)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

BAPU, S/O GANGAPPA, BENAKANAHALLI, AGE 30 YEARS, R/AT SIDDAGANGA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, TUMKUR-572 103, USN No.1SI14ME033.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SHIVANAGOL VEERABHADRA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE REGISTRAR, VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, GNANA SANGAMA, BELAGAVI-590018.

¶15

THE PRINCIPAL SIDDAGANGA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, TUMKUR-572 103.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT. POONAM PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI SANTHOSH S. NAGARALE, ADVOCATE FOR R1

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED LETTER ISSUED BY THE R-1 BEARING ITS NO. VTU/BGM/ACA-SA(1)/2022-23/6185 DATED

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:5913 WP No. 2281 of 2023

¶20

17/01/2023 WHICH IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-O TO THE WRIT PETITION.

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This writ petition is filed for following reliefs:

¶24

i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari by quashing impugned letter issued by Respondent no.1 bearing no.:VTU/ BGM/Aca-SA(1)/2022-23/6185 Dt: 17.01.2023 which is produced herewith and marked as Annexure-O to writ petition in interest of justice and equity.

¶25

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus to respondents No.1 and 2 to given an opportunity to the petitioner to take his admission for the fourth year BE Course (7^th & 8^th Semester) by collecting considerable fees, etc.

¶26

Sri Shivanagol Veerabhadra, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner got admitted to B.E. Mechanical Engineering in respondent no.2-College affiliated to respondent no.1-University during academic year 2014-15 with USN No.1SI14ME033. It was submitted that when petitioner

¶27

was to proceed to 7^th Semester, due to severe financial constraints, he had to discontinue Course. Accordingly, he sought refund of admission fees and thereafter joined Indian Army. After having served in Army for five years, when his financial circumstances had improved, he submitted

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:5913 WP No. 2281 of 2023

¶30

representation on 07.01.2023 (Annexure-L) to respondent - College and University to permit him to continue Course. It was submitted that in response to same, respondent-University issued endorsement dated 17.01.2023 at Annexure-O declining his request by referring to Regulations OB6.1 and OB6.2. It was submitted that since outer limit for completion of Course fell during Covid-19 Pandemic, there was no impediment for University to have taken same into account and permitted petitioner to continue Course. Failure to consider circumstances under which petitioner had to discontinue Course had rendered impugned endorsement unsustainable and sought quashing.

¶31

On other hand, Sri Santhosh S. Nagarale and Smt. Poonam Patil, learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 2 respectively sought to oppose writ petition. Referring to statement of objections filed by respondent no.2, Smt. Poonam Patil, learned counsel submitted that OB 6.2, mandated outer limit for completion of Course as eight academic years from date of first admission. It was submitted that since petitioner was admitted during academic year 2014-15, his representation on 07.01.2023 would be after lapse of said outer

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:5913 WP No. 2281 of 2023

¶34

limit and therefore, petitioner would not be entitled for any relief. Hence sought dismissal of writ petition.

¶35

Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition record.

¶36

From above there is no dispute that petitioner was admitted with respondent no.2-College for B.E. Mechanical Engineering Course in academic year 2014-15. It is also not in dispute petitioner has progressed up to 7^th Semester when he had discontinued Course. After having served for 5 years in Indian Army, and on improving his financial circumstances, petitioner submitted representation to respondents to permit him to continue Course. Said request is declined under impugned endorsement at Annexure-O. However, Annexure-O cites regulation OB 6.1 and OB 6.2, which read as follows:

¶37

"OB6.1 A Candidate who has not obtained the eligibility for third semester after a period of three academic years from the date of first admission shall discontinue the course. However, the candidate is eligible for readmission for first year B.E./B.Tech. in respective College of the university and he/she shall be allotted a University Seat Number (USN) without any change in the year of admission in the USN by the serial number of the candidate shall start with Seven hundred (7XX) series in the same branch.

¶38

OB 6.2 The candidate shall complete the course within a period of eight academic years from the date of first admission, falling which he/she has to discontinue the course."

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:5913 WP No. 2281 of 2023

¶40

Perusal of OB 6.1 would indicate that candidate, who has not obtained eligibility for third semester after a period of three academic years from date of first admission would require to discontinue course, but would be entitled for readmission to first year B.E. Same would not apply to petitioner.

¶41

Though, O.B.6.2 would prescribe outer limit for completion of course as 8 academic years from first admission, admittedly, petitioner had progressed upto 7^th semester. The terminal years of said 8 academic year would fall during COVID-19 Pandemic. It is seen that NMC, in case of MBBS and BAMS students has provided additional attempts for passing Course and also deemed to have enlarged outer limit for completion of Course. Even respondent no.1 - VTU has granted additional attempts as indicated in Annexure-H. Under these peculiar circumstances, even without quashing Annexure-O, it would be appropriate to permit petitioner to submit representation to respondent-University for extension of outer limit to complete Course.

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:5913 WP No. 2281 of 2023

¶44

Respondent-University is directed to consider same sympathetically in light of above mentioned circumstances and fact that petitioner has served in Indian Army and petitioner would be able to complete course within additional attempts as contemplated in Annexure-H.

¶45

With above observations writ petition stands disposed of. Needless to state that such consideration shall be within a period of four weeks from date of receipt of representation by petitioner. It is also clarified that above direction issued in peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and would not be

¶46

binding precedent for any other case.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

Psg*

Bapu v. the Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bapu v. the Registrar

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

Sri. v. Shankarachari Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. S. Shivappa Vs Sri Narayanappa

M/S Pedda Shiva Reddy Foundation Wellsprings Academy Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. M S Diwakar Vs the Bangalore Development Authority

K Nagappa Vs K Hanumantharayappa

Sathguru School of Nursing Vs State of Karnataka