Dismissed

Mrs Rashmi J S v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Mar 2024WP/7402/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a university circular imposing a penalty fee for backlog examinations. The court rejected the claim of unjust enrichment, upheld the fee structure, but directed the university to allow the petitioner to take exams upon partial payment of fees.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; University directed to permit petitioner to take examinations upon payment of 50% of the fee by 20.03.2024 and the balance by 03.04.2024.

Mrs Rashmi J S Vs the State of Karnataka — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:10986 WP No. 7402 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 7402 OF 2024 (EDN-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MRS. RASHMI J.S, W/O SRI. KIRAN N, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO.9, KAVI KESHI RAJA ROAD, HANUMANTHANAGARA, BANGALORE - 560 004.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. KIRAN N, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by POORNIMA SHIVANNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶14

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LAW DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶15

THE VICE CHANCELLOR AND ORS., KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY, HUBLI - 580 025.

¶16

THE REGISTRAR (EVALUATION), KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY, NAVANAGARA, HUBLI - 580 025.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:10986 WP No. 7402 of 2024

¶19

THE PRINCIPAL,

¶20

VISVESWARAPURA COLLEGE OF LAW, K.R. ROAD, V.V. PURAM, BANGALORE - 560 004.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT. PRATHIBHA K, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. GIRISH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4; SRI. SUDHANVA, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 1) TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED CIRCULAR HAVING REFERENCE NO. KSLU/EXAM/2023-24/2339. DATED 21/02/2024 ISSUED BY THE R4 IN RECOMMENDATION OF R3 APPENDED VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.,

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶27

i. "To quash the impugned circular having reference no.KSLU/Exam/2023-24/2339. Dated 21-02-2024. Issued by the respondent no.4 in recommendation of respondent no.3 appended vide ANNEXURE C.

¶28

ii. To consider the representation of the petitioner submitted to the respondents on 02-03-2024 vide ANNEXURE D, by directing them to permit the petitioner to take the upcoming examination of December 2023.

¶29

iii. To pass such further orders or any other orders as this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and proper to correct the KSLU and it officials to render justice to the petitioner in the matter of examination and results."

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:10986 WP No. 7402 of 2024

¶31

The petitioner has joined the Vishveshwarapura College of Law for a three year B.A.LL.B, course. The petitioner, having not succeeded in all her subjects in the examination, has a backlog of 14 subjects. Despite a period of 8 years fixed with the additional period granted by the Division Bench of this Court, the petitioner had not been successful. Similar students having not been successful, another petition has been filed where the Division Bench of this Court had permitted the university to grant one more opportunity to the concerned students on such terms has deemed it. In furtherance thereof the University has permitted the students who have failed, to take up one more examination subject to making payment a sum of Rs.2,000/- as penalty for each subject for which the examination must be taken vide circular dated 21.02.2024. It is challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an exorbitant fee of Rs.2,000/- is being charged per subject, the petitioner having failed in 14 subjects, the petitioner would be required to make payment of Rs.28,000/- as

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:10986 WP No. 7402 of 2024

¶34

penalty and a further amount of Rs.220/- for the marks card per subject. The amount which has been sought for by the university is only to unjustly enrich the university and for no other purpose. The petitioner would be put to financial constraint on account of the said payment. As such, he submits that the circular dated 21.02.2024 is required to be quashed.

¶35

Sri. Girish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4, university would submit that the requirement to clear the examination for III year LL.B course was 6 years. In view of the order of the Division Bench of this Court, one year extension was granted to the students to clear the examinations. By way of amendment, the said period of six years was extended by a period of one year by way of the Karnataka State Universities regulations governing the three year LL.B degree course in law (2nd amendment 2015). The said period of six years was extended for two more consecutive attempts, thus making two consecutive attempts, i.e., one attempt per semester, taking upto 07 years. The petitioner not having cleared despite the said

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:10986 WP No. 7402 of 2024

¶37

amendment. The university has now imposed a penalty of Rs.2,000/- per subject, which is a reasonable amount. Considering that arrangements have to be made for such examinations. On this ground he submits that there is no unjust enrichment as such for the University and this penalty is required to maintain discipline and decorum among the students.

¶38

Heard learned counsels for both the sides and perused the record.

¶39

The only grounds on which the penalty of Rs.2,000/- and the marks card fee of Rs.220/- is now sought to be challenged by the petitioner is on the ground of unjust, enrichment on the part of the university and financial constraints on the part of the petitioner. This is being raised namely on the ground that the petitioner has 14 backlog subjects requiring payment of a hefty amount by the petitioner. What this Court would have to look at is the penalty fixed per subject and not specifically in the case of the petitioner. Looked at per subject a sum of Rs.2,000/- which is fixed for a student to take up the

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:10986 WP No. 7402 of 2024

¶41

examination in the 8th year for a three year course and the university being required to conduct this examination specifically for these students, the same cannot be said of the hefty or an attempt made by the university to disentitle the concerned students from taking up the examination. It is only because the petitioner has not cleared 14 out of 28 subjects, the petitioner is now required to make payment of a larger amount. The same cannot be a ground to quash a circular which is issued in the general interest and which taken by itself cannot amount to any unjust enrichment on the part of the university.

¶42

A perusal of the statement produced at annexure-R4 indicates the number of attempts made by the petitioner during the last 07 years which indicates that she has failed in several of the attempts despite 07 years opportunity having been granted. Since the petitioner is interested to take up the examination once again, she will have to be permitted to do so by making payment of the penalty.

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:10986 WP No. 7402 of 2024

¶45

Hence, I do not find any grounds to quash the circular dated 21.02.2024 and the petition stands dismissed.

¶46

In the event of the petitioner making payment of 50% of the amount by 20.03.2024 and the balance 50% by 03.04.2024, respondent is directed to permit the petitioner to take up the examinations and thereafter issue necessary marks card.

¶47

Since the order is passed in the presence of Sri.Girsih Kumar, learned counsel and he is directed to inform the University about the order, which the University will act upon it. Marks card to be issued thereafter, even if the petitioner fails her exams.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

CT: BHK

¶50

Mrs Rashmi J S v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Rashmi J S v. the State of Karnataka

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

M/S Smart Office Vs the State

Sri. Vikram. N Vs State by Kuvempunagara

Sri Gopal D H Vs Smt Padmashree

S Santhanamoorthy Vs the State of Karnataka

Margadarshan Education Trust Vs the Registrar

Sri Byraveshwara Vidya Samsthe Vs State of Karnataka