Disposed¶49

Dr Anindita Roy v. the Registrar (Evaluation)

Karnataka HC8 Apr 2026WP/918/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RGUHS; Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences; Registrar (Evaluation); Notice dated 20.11.2023; No.RGU/REG(E)/CONVO/MPC/11/2023-24; Annexure-A; Show Cause Notice 19.01.2023; reply dated 08.02.2023; speaking order; opportunity of hearing; personal hearing; two months; certiorari; Articles 226 and 227; Dr. Anindita Roy; WP No. 918 of 2024; EDN-RES; Karnataka High Court; E.S. Indiresh; prior orders 09.12.2020 and 14.12.2020 set aside; W.P.No.15564/2020 c/w W.P.No.15357/2020.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent-University to consider the petitioner's reply dated 08.02.2023 (Annexure-F) within two months from receipt of the order and to communicate the result to the petitioner before calling her for personal hearing; no adjudication on merits. ¶49

Dr Anindita Roy Vs the Registrar (Evaluation) — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent-University ought to be directed to consider the petitioner's reply dated 08.02.2023 (Annexure-F) to the Show Cause Notice dated 19.01.2023 and Notice dated 20.11.2023, in compliance with the earlier direction to pass a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing. +1 more

¶45

Court's answer

The respondent-University shall consider the petitioner's reply dated 08.02.2023 (Annexure-F) within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of the order.

¶47

Ratio / Principle

The Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶50

Key takeaways

The result of the respondent-University's consideration of the reply shall be made known to the petitioner before calling upon the petitioner for personal hearing, as stated in the impugned notices.ratio¶54

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (EDN-RES) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging Notice dated 20.11.2023 (No.RGU/REG(E)/CONVO/MPC/11/2023-24, Annexure-A) issued by the Registrar (Evaluation), Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences-Karnataka. The petitioner had earlier obtained orders in W.P.Nos.44548 and 45600 of 2015 and in W.P.No.15564/2020 c/w W.P.No.15357/2020 (disposed 23.11.2022), whereby the University's orders dated 09.12.2020 and 14.12.2020 were set aside and the University was directed to pass a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner having filed reply dated 08.02.2023 (Annexure-F) to the Show Cause Notice dated 19.01.2023 and Notice dated 20.11.2023 (Annexures-E and A), the High Court (E.S. Indiresh, J.) directed the respondent-University to consider the reply dated 08.02.2023 within two months from receipt of the order and to make the result known to the petitioner before calling her for personal hearing as stated in the impugned notices, expressly leaving the merits unexpressed, and disposed of the writ petition.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:19372 WP No. 918 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 918 OF 2024 (EDN-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

DR. ANINDITA ROY D/O SRI. GOPINATH ROY, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, FLAT NO.504, GANGA APTS., M.P. ROAD, KHALPARA, SILLIGURI POST, DARJEELING DISTRICT, WEST BENGAL - 734 405.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. PRASHANTH H.S., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE REGISTRAR (EVALUATION) RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES-KARNATAKA, 4^TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 041.

¶14

(BY SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE)

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF

¶17

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER TO NOTICE DATED 20/11/2023, BEARING NO.RGU/REG(E)/CONVO/MPC/ 11/2023-24, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:19372 WP No. 918 of 2024

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶25

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner

¶26

assailing the Notice dated 20.11.2023 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent-University.

¶27

Sri. Prashanth H.S., learned counsel appearing

¶28

for the petitioner contended that, the petitioner herein has already approached this Court in W.P.No.45600/2015 (Annexure-B) and W.P.No.15564/2020 connected with W.P.No.15357/2020 (Annexure-D), wherein the

¶29

respondent-University was directed to, consider the case of the petitioner by passing a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, as the petitioner herein has filed reply dated 08.02.2023

¶30

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:19372 WP No. 918 of 2024

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

(Annexure-F) to the Show Cause Notice dated 19.01.2023 and 20.11.2023 (Annexures-E and A) and therefore, sought for interference of this Court.

¶34

Per contra, Sri. Sachin B.S., learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University sought to justify the impugned notice.

¶35

In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court in W.P.No.15564/2020 connected with W.P.No.15357/2020 disposed of on 23.11.2022 (Annexure-D) at paragraph No.6, held as under:

¶36

"6. In view of the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for the parties, careful examination of impugned orders would reveal that the respondent-University has mentioned about the writ petitions filed by the parties and it is further stated that the respondent-University is implementing the order passed by this Court. Careful examination of the orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition

¶37

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:19372 WP No. 918 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Nos.44548 of 2015 and 45600 of 2015, would indicate that, this Court has disposed of the petitions with a direction to the respondentUniversity to issue Show-cause notice to petitioners before taking any decision in the matter. However, on careful examination of the impugned orders, reasons for withdrawing the results, as well as not issuing the marks cards, is not forthcoming in the notifications. Therefore, learned counsel appearing for petitioners are justified in saying that the impugned orders are not speaking orders. It is well settled principle of law that the reasons are the heartbeat of the order and without disclosing the reasons, respondent-University has passed an order based on the 154^th Syndicate meeting. In that view of the matter, impugned orders dated 09^th December, 2020 and 14^th December, 2020 passed by the respondent-University against the petitioners herein are set-aside and matter is remanded to the respondent-University to consider afresh and take appropriate decision in the matter by passing a speaking order after affording an

¶41

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:19372 WP No. 918 of 2024

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

opportunity to petitioners in the matter. Accordingly, writ petitions are disposed of."

¶44

Taking into consideration the observation made

¶45

by this Court, I have carefully examined the Show Cause Notice dated 19.01.2023 (Annexure-E) and Notice dated 20.11.2023 (Annexure-A) which is impugned in this petition.

¶46

In that view of the matter, as the petitioner

¶47

herein has filed the reply dated 08.02.2023 (Annexure-F) to the respondent-University, in compliance of the Show Cause Notice produced at Annexures-E and A, I am of the opinion that, the respondent-University shall consider the reply dated 08.02.2023 (Annexure-F) within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶48

With these observations, the Writ Petition is

¶49

disposed of.

¶50

It is made clear that, the Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. It is also

¶51

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:19372 WP No. 918 of 2024

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

made clear that, the respondent-University shall consider the reply referred to above and the result of the same be made known to the petitioner before calling upon the petitioner for personal hearing, as stated in the impugned

¶55

notices.

¶56

Sd/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶57

KLV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 29

Dr Anindita Roy v. the Registrar (Evaluation)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Anindita Roy v. the Registrar (Evaluation)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prem Kumar @ Prem Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Srinivasaiah C Vs the State of Karnataka

Raju Sunar @ Raju Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.Nagaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Gurubasaveshwara Devasthana Vs State of Karnataka

Ms. Nupur Sancheti Vs Jain Centre of Management Studies (Cms)