Disposed

Kumari Hemalatha M S v. the Vice Chancellor

Karnataka HC21 Feb 2024WP/4726/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ to quash a university notification barring her re-appearances in her 3rd year LL.B. exam due to missed exams caused by the pandemic. The Court disposed of the petition, reserving liberty for the petitioner to submit a representation to the University for enlargement of course duration.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of reserving liberty to petitioner to submit representation for enlargement of course duration; University directed to consider representation expeditiously.

Kumari Hemalatha M S Vs the Vice Chancellor — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:7271 WP No. 4726 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO.4726 OF 2024 (EDN-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

KUMARI HEMALATHA M.S., D/O M.G. SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT MUDIGERE VILLAGE BUGUDANAHALLI POST, BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT - 572 103.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI M.G. SHIVANNA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI HANUMANTHAPPA B. HARAVIGOWDAR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE VICE CHANCELLOR, KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY, NAVANAGARA, HUBBALLI - 580 025.

¶12

THE REGISTRAR EVALUATION, KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY, NAVANAGARA, HUBBALLI - 580 025.

¶13

Digitally signed by GURURAJ D Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE PRINCIPAL, SRI KRISHNA LAW COLLEGE, BATAWADE, TUMAKURU CITY, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 103.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI GIRISH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; R3 SERVED)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH OF NOTIFICATION DATED 08.02.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-F BEARING NO. KSLU/EXAM/2023-24/2226 INSOFOR AS AT SL.NO.11 IS CONCERNED AT PAGE NO.23 AND DIRECT THE R-3 PERMITTING THE PETITIONER TO APPEAR REMAINING SUBJECTS SCHEDULED TO BE HELD FROM 21.03.2024 OF 3^RD YEAR LL.B EXAMINATION AND ETC.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:7271 WP No. 4726 of 2024

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This writ petition is filed seeking for following reliefs:

¶23

(1) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing of Notification dated 08.02.2024 vide Annexure-F bearing No.KSLU/EXAM/202324/2226 insofar as at Sl.no.11 is concerned.

¶24

(2) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 3^rd respondent permitting the petitioner to appear remaining subjects scheduled to be held from 21.03.2024 of 3^rd year LL.B examinations and etc.

¶25

Sri M.G. Shivanna, learned counsel appearing for Sri Hanumanthappa B. Haravigowdar, advocate for petitioner submitted that petitioner got admitted for 3 years LL.B Course during academic year 2016-17 in respondent no.3-College affiliated to respondents no.1 and 2-University. It was submitted that as per Regulations, outer limit for completion of Course was 7 years. However due to out-break of Covid-19 Pandemic and lockdown in year 2020-2021, petitioner was unable to appear for examinations in June, 2020 and December, 2020. It was submitted that infact University did not make any provisions for failed/repeaters students during said period. Having lost opportunity of appearing for these two examinations, respondent was not justified in issuing notification on 08.02.2024 at Annexure-F barring students of 3

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:7271 WP No. 4726 of 2024

¶28

years LL.B Course, who had taken admission from year 2009 to 2016 from appearing at next ensuing Examinations commencing from 21.03.2024. On said grounds, learned counsel seeks for allowing writ petition.

¶29

On other hand, Sri Girish Kumar R, learned counsel appearing for respondents no.1 and 2 submitted that Regulations of University prescribing outer limit of duration for completion of Course having expired, petitioner had no right to seek relief as sought for. It was submitted that power to prescribe and enlarge outer limit for completion of Course was vested exclusively with University, based on recommendation of Syndicate and without even filing any representation with University, petitioner had approached this Court. Therefore, sought dismissal of writ petition.

¶30

In reply, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner would submit representation to University explaining facts and circumstances, which would entitle petitioner for enlargement of duration for completion of Course within one week from today.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:7271 WP No. 4726 of 2024

¶33

Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition

¶34

record.

¶35

From above submission and since power to prescribe outer limit for completion of Course and relaxation from same lies within jurisdiction of University as part of academic standards, it would be appropriate to dispose of writ petition reserving liberty to petitioner to submit representation.

¶36

In case such representation is made, respondent University is directed to consider same, if necessary by consulting Syndicate and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and inform petitioner of result.

¶37

With above observation, writ petition stands disposed of.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

GRD

¶40

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47

Kumari Hemalatha M S v. the Vice Chancellor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumari Hemalatha M S v. the Vice Chancellor

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 Executive Committee Vs Deputy Director Public Instructions

B Saravana Nathan Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Bharath Kumar Dandin Vs Visvesvaraya Technological University

Smt Gayathri G Vs Karnataka State Law University

Mr. Raghu R Vs the National Commissioner for Indian System of Medicine

Smt. Masthamma Since Deceased by Her Lrs Vs R.D. Gnanaiah