WP N0.4I58 of 2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAH
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAI_)H__'41: .
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF' ' _
BEFORE Ml," 1
THE HON'BLE MR.JIJ$TIcE_StUBHAS:§: fB'.tA1:§IH _
WRIT PETITION No.u43.z58 /1200?:-~
BETWEEN:
1. Mohd. Samee '
S/0. Ahmed_I3agewa;1i, V
Aged about 320 }ye_ars,'- A 1
Residentydf
Mangoli Road, 5,
BijaPt1r;t5~.85}101'E§i~: H
2. chahat A.shé_i1:h;e«VtH%tttett.Ht H
D/0. slat Shaikhf' .'
Aged about 2'O.yt:ar'3,
Retgiding at J.~M.Road,
Bvij.aipur--58x6101'."' %%%%%
' D"/.0, Th akur,
Aged ab~oH;1t19 years,
Residing at College Hostel
AMa1ikvS"8.nda1 Institute
V. A or Architecture.
Sari. Harish.S.Maigur, Advocate for P2 86 P3)
...PETITIONERS
WP No.-4158 of 2004
AND:
3.. Vishveshwaraya Technological
University, by its Registrar,
Nehrunagar, Belgaum.
2. The Director of Technical Education
Palace Road, Bangalore. i
3. The Principai, Malik Sandal Institute or
Art of Architecture, . _ " A'
HUDCO Cross, Bijapur." ,.RES~,E'0ND-ENTS. '
(By Shri. Aravind.D.Ku1karn_i_,_'Advocate if'o1'_R}.
Srnt. K.Vidyavat,lii,.._AGA for A it
Shri. K.N.Pati1, Advocflate for R"3}" " _
This writvpetitio_n i__.s«.f1'1ed 'ur_iderVvArtic1es 225 85 227
of the Constit'uti_o11 poi' ._India]j; . praying to direct the
respondent N"o._1"t'e .a'p-pjrove..rth'e admission to the B.E.
Archite_cture.Vpco9t:r_se to' the "pe.tit_i.r5ner, and etc.
on for orders this day,
the Court rnade-the 'following:
ORDER
A Vi T. in this writ petition have sought for a
di’rection.–t”o_. respondent No.1 to approve the admission
“-.to the Architecture course and also for a direction
respondents to treat petitioner Nos.2 and 3
eligible to BE. Architecture course.
e$’s&E’/+
1.
\o’VF’ EVU.’+.l.DC U! £UU’+
2. Petitioners had appiied for admission to the
course of BB. Architecture to the respondent No.1~
University. It appears that, their applications were not
considered for admission on the
petitioners are not qualified for the
inasmuch as the petitioners ”
aggregate marks in optional
Mathematics and any one :CJhemistry,
Bio–techno1ogy, con€.§[ute:§ Electronic
and Information Scie-1’1ce.:f V
order dated 27.01.2004,
directedg’ and 2 to admit the
‘peé;i’tior1ers “‘toiB.E. Architecture course. Now, the
‘p_e’titi:onergs’«-._have flied a memo inter alia stating that,
siucicessfully compieted the BE. Architecture
along with the memo, they have produced
i’ma_rks statement issued by the 1st respondent–
Ailiiiniversity. The marks statement shows that the
%”a
WP No.4158 of 2004
petitioners have completed BE. Architecture course
successfully.
4. Petitioners rely on ‘
communication issued by thveiiiiVD’i’1*e._ctor-:’of it
Education to the Chief *Edueesen.,
Department, opining that forflthe pui’pose’ofliadmission
to the BE. Architecture. _cou_i-ss”e,–.,p instead of 50%
aggregate, it should all»Vthejvvsiubjects. He has
also relied prescribed by the
Council is stated that —
a:”Nolc1ai5ic:li(;l_a.te,’«VT§i/itlfi less than 50% marks in
aggr’ega’te_,’* be admitted to the
architecture ii~,r_:iou.rse unless he/she has
passed .e;;_an1ination at the end of the new
Vsczheme of Senior School Certificate
or equivalent with Mathematics
tjfilriglish and subjects of examinations at
it IO-i-2 level, subject to an Aptitude Test.”
,l”‘u.A’I’ie’ submitted that there is no requirement as such of
aggregate in the optional subjects. Relying on that
éu’
‘5’ \