WP 1798919007
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT 3ANGALORE
DATED TI-{I3 THE 0911* DAY OF' JUNE, 2903
BEFORE
mm HOIPBLE MR.JUBT!C§E i§.s.:=m''e:L .; "
wnrr wrrrzog N0. ;1g§9 (fin __ '~ . «. "
BETWEEN:
DIVYA KOTAMBRI, V ' r
1:310 GURUSHANTHAPPA KA-'i'AM}31?3,_ I
AGE: 16 YEARS,
SINCE MINOR REPRESENFED BY, ,
HER FATHER AND NA'I'?3Rl'.L GUARDIAR]
GURUSHANTAPPA K(}"I'A3\f£§i~'€E. ' ~
S/O SIDDAPPA KOTAMBEJ,
AGE:58YEARS, '_
HOUSE No.17, LINQARA-5_ 2*¥AGr1R, '.
HUBL§---580 __
. FETITIONER
{BY SR1. NEELA;<k~x2¢TAr3:=;;'v-:s§.'r*1;'jA§,' ADWJ5
AND:
_1, THE s'rATs.oF KAVRNAVTVAKA.
A ..... .. V
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
V'; TECHNICAL * EDUCATION,
'4:z_y1;:3,BUiA1,:j:zgGv,
1:;-R. PJv}BEDKAR VEEDHI,
BA1~IQ.A1oR_E -'~-5_so 001.
. THE 15i12Et:Td:é OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION,
._ '-GovEr2Nxs.¢E~1~rr op' KARNATAKA,
hp-ALacE ROAD,
- 560 001.
THE CHAIRMAN NODAL CENTRE.
'V DIPLOMA ADMISSEON THROUGH
"VCENTRALISED SELEC'I'ION, 209?,
DEPARTMENF OF TECHMCAL EDUCAITON,
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR,
TECHNICAL EDUCATION,
PALACE ROAD,
BANGALORE --- 560 001
WP 17989f'2007
4. THE PRINCIPAL,
JSS - K}-L KABBUR INSTI'I'UTE
OF' ENGINEERING,
VEDYA GIRL
DHARWAD - 580 004. RESPONDENTS
(BY SR1. B.MANOHAR, AGA FOR R1 TO 3.3;
3:21. S.P.KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R4}
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &”A2é7.oF”*i’§a:;’ _.’? H
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAWNG TO QUASH THE IMPFJGNEED ‘NOTICE
CUM ORDER AT ANNEXUREJ3 ISSUED BY.;-W»..RESP0ND’E1\?:’ ISATED’, ‘V
24.08200′? AS ILLEGAL AND ONE WITHOUT dI}RISI_3ICIT§’C’¥§I V,’ ‘V ‘
THIS PETITION comma ON ma PRELI MINARY “B! ”
GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE EEOLLOWING; 7’
oR.nmR”=.. ‘ ” V’
1. In this Writ petitibiag’ is challenging
A1mexu;re~G endorsement by the 4th
respondm:.1t~PI1I1′ of Engineering,
Vidya Giri, Dhaiw=za.r1. ” ‘
2. As ” the petitioner~student is
informed t_ha£”a§ vs1;e.1w~e;.s;»§~;1e1igib1e for being adnaittcd to
V.33’i1?10311?i”;=i.fl:_A11§0m§bfl£..___Eng,i11¢cring course for the academic
less than 16 years of age as on 1.7.2007,
vher “a<i[V§1issxi£)1i-'V."}1a§ivbeen cancelled. The 4&1 respondent has
issued évgnifigunicafion based on the letter dated 22.8.2007'
iiéfiaeéi Secretary, Technical Education Board, Bangalore.
we 17989/200'?
3
3. Petitioner was selected by the 3rd respondenbchairman,
Nodal Centre, thmugh centralised selection for the aeagleixlie
year 2007438 for dipbma course in automobile
She was allotted to the 4*’ Iespondent~C-oIlege.”” ifoii *
admitted. The candidate was directed tgzxmport ii i
of the 4*’? respondenbcoliege on or befoxe
the provisional admission letter to ‘i§emesteiFi:i_:di;;1oina
course is produced by the
to AIIIICXIIIVE:-B provisional lijefifioner mported
to the 431 Iespondentflollegeu for the
first semester ueiieineexing course.
Petitioner for having paid the necessary fees at D. _'
4. At the of’i’admission, it was noticed by the
vmxghoxifies petiiltionerwwas not eligible as per the relevant
19i:ales;if<:~rV to diploma course in automobile
Vengiileenringvezsu–éhe'l:=lied not completed 16 years as on 1.7.2007.
Therefore x Fe cipal of the College was communicated vide
jf 'A:1n.cxur¢gR4" letter dated 22.03.2007 informing that admission
of lpe-llzitioner was not approved. Based on the same, 4'51
ii 'ficlent issued notice to the student informing that her
wp 17939/2007
4
mlmission for the diploma course in automobile was cancelled.
Petitioner appears to have made representation addressed to the
authorities through her father requesting for
appear for the examination and makm g an _
to cancel her admission. When the author’ities ‘did.
the petitioner to appear for the examiaation, A. A’
petition.
5. This Court granted an 1.2007
staying the operation communication
Am:1exu1e~G. RCSp0fld€fli$.–‘3’v;3£f:”4 to permit the
petitioner to examination of
diploma in autozlrohiie’ to the result of the
writ pefitioen. 1″ appeared for the first
semester exaxzririatioxas. — dd ” ‘–
6. Cogntentiozr of the Counsei for the petitioner is
she made to the course and prosecute her studies
Without that she was in any manner ineligble to
take di;:_)iaz:1a1.:”‘.e;’x¢..ii.'<A:to11;t's'.t-': in automobile engineering and that the
i."V'a1ithoxfities~vV_x$€re1e not justified at this distance of time in
the adzzms' sion made.
we 1793912007
7. Respondents 1 to 3 have filed statement of objectioiis.
Learned Addl. Government Advocate brings to my ~ V.
relevant ruies regarding Selection of Candidates it
to Government and Aided Polytecihiiioe «_ tend « i
Institutions: (Full Time and Part Time}
provide for the eligibility criteria.””i?;u1e “3(.1.)(a1;{ijii)as
1.mder:~ it it E
“In the case of candicietes’ in
automobile, the candidate _1iair_e the
age of 16 yeeirsigesionizfhe _Jtify’- the year of
admissioxfl» 4- = ‘
3. The §.e”iepreseiited by Sri s. P.Ku}ka1:t1i,
Advocate, wliao has e.’;:}-iitertient of objections.
“edge, admittedly the petitioner having been
Abo_Vm.:0n_ was short of one month and one day in
attsaiiieiiiigeitlie years at the time of admission. Thexefoze
she wae” ineligiifle for being admitted to the course. However
Jqofieing this, the 316 respondent–ChJa1rman of the Nodal
{jentre'”for admission to diploma courses thxough centralised
T -eeieofion gave provisional admission order to the petitioner for
the first semester diploma course and allotted her to the 43*
Iespondent-College. Thereupon the 4*’-‘1 respondent has given
5
‘A U 11111 Judge
WP 1′?989/200′?’
studics. It has to be made clear that petitioner shall 3′;.,@§ be
made to pay any fees either towards tuition fees or othe:$fi7i§€§.fbx
getting herself madlfiified. In the V’
cifirumstances of this case, this magmas:
adopted in the ends ofgusfice.
10. In the result, this writ is” a
direction to the mspcndeng§ .13:_ th1’e’V;;:$étiiVioner for
the current academic in Automobile
Engzlecring fortl1}29’i*§:l’§ _’ any fees
fmm her.
Sd/-»