Ms Rashmi S vs Visveswaraya Technological … on 9 September, 2008

.4 c»
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUYT BENCH AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 9711 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE ANANI) IESYE.'-fa1Ii;;'A)V"'s.Vc§3;fi._).:i  V'  

 . . ' .  'I  .1.

Visvezs-va--rayVa ,'University,
Bclgaum, %  " 

Repflby ifs» Rf¢gi$trax':(Evé;Iuafion). ..RespondeI1t

   for Basavaprabhu S.Pat;il, Adv.)

X %   T. petition is filed under Articles 225 and 227 of
~. t'i1§:« Cozistitution of India praying to quash the impugned

's~.order_date.dTV 1 1.4.2000 passed by respsonclent vide Annexum

'B'  cw."

"  AA  'l'#l3is Writ pcfition coming on for prcliminaxy hearing in
V' , 'Bfigmup this day, the Court madc the following:



 

 

#3'

ORDER

The pefition coming on for preliminary healing (B
Group) is taken up for final disposal. The t’o::&the
petitioner and respondent were heard. ‘V

2. The facts of the I

student of B.E. Degree
Commuuicafions), at Basa§§shgvax’to College,
Bagalkot, which is University.
During the 5″! _. conducted on
31.12.200’7 , for the subject
Transm§.ssto-_n Guides Lines” and on
2.1.2oo3’Aiv:§;sn:’1–:=.;:¢ …u….[a,.pe…n;..g for the subject ‘Advanced
Micfo that she had indulged in
steigenxents were recorded on the above

dates bymthei Superintendent of Examination. It is

h e ._h¢.– that though the Chief Superintendent did

h.er.’:to make a statement she was under undue

pzessuxe issue such a statement though she in fiact had

not any such malpractice. Thereafter the

A “it. reej:§ondent–UniveIsity had called upon the petitioner to

vtappear before the Malpractice Cases Consideration

‘ Committee by a notice dated 1.2.2008. The petitioner did

@

,5,” Lf «~

therefore would seek the indulgence of this court to modify
the older by way of permitting the petitioner to appear for

fiecember 2008 examination, atleast.

4. While the Counsel for the

oppose the petition and

evidence as to the petieeneee ;”gui:1t,i’gt_ihe of

modifying the order of nz/R9.
other hand, punishment isu sympathy
and it is for this isilyet enabled to
take the The indulgence
shown by be watered down
further by this court at the
a case where there has
»otbitI*a1iness on the part of the
shown to the petitioner would

:§et~a;p’A-gimoedentiwlfieh would sexiously afieet the discipline

V University from taking appropriate action in

it of malpractices and therefore, the Counsel

We eeemit that the petition be dismissed.

5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances,

Hithe University having passed the impufied order at

Annexure-B, may have acted well within its discnetion in

Z

.. 5′ «~
imposing the punishment. The petitioner was in the 53″
semester in the year 2007 and would have yet another three

semesters to complete before she embarks on her ceteer. At

that point of time the petitioner “been

found guilty of malpractice, which in efi’ect;

her career by two years. The petitioner .

tak1n’ g examma’ tion ugh’ t ”

possible in May/June/J£;§yV_an§i’e- peg¢n§ees::’«–v2oe8, % the
petitioner couid afleget be egceiminafion of
January 2009. It of the respondents.
The discmtion’ cannot
be sitting in its writ
career prospects of the
the respondent-University is

dixeciizeeiéto dated 11.4.2008 only in so

to take the n

~ ., A ifnot of Decunba 2008.

obsersatisms, the petition stamh d1spoeed’

Sd/-9,.

Judge

Sub*