High Court Karnataka High Court

Sandeep Singh vs The Registrar Of Evaluation on 24 June, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sandeep Singh vs The Registrar Of Evaluation on 24 June, 2008
Author: B.S.Patil
" : f4.';cms'.:itr.:§:io:1"c3fIndia praying to dimct the R1 to 53311:: the hall
 !ickét.Vto petitioner for the examination commcncing on
 31.112-%e:}7.

 VT     petition coming' on for Orders, this day, the Court
"--.. m,a;d¢tl:m-tbkwing:

20697.07'

il'fllEI-iIG!'IO0fiR.'1'O§'KkRlA'.l'AKAA.Tl
DA'PEB'l'H!BTI-I324-"*DAYOFJUH3,2008
BE?
THE HOWBLE MR. JU3'!'I% B.S.l'A'l'II;

 

BETWEEH:

Sandeep Singh,

S/0 Satyanarayana Singh,

Aged about 18 years,

Resident ofJaya11@9*** Block,   
Twit Bund Road, 

my ulmmuum aj,-A     kk   

1. The  "  
Vishvcshwai:s:ya_fl'echxn;§kpgn2-,ai_-- University,

Bangalore Institute oi'-'!'cchnologz,
K..RgRoa3, v.v.i>1n§gg;,,

an  fin:
 8.93111 and Anti, tor R-1;
It/.a,_s.x.r.§gaf:r;¢y as Ants, Adv Eat my

  'm filed under Articles 226 85 227 of the

 



"  W as Schedubd Cash: ofdifiemnt sum.

2 wp20697.07

$3

1. The pctifimncr has appxwhcd this Court seeking a
direction to the 1-: respondent ---- University to 

ticket to him for the n m on _

2. It is his case that he bc1o:;gg fa
category and is entitled for being 1′
secured the Iequisitc P.U.C.

ex:am:m.a.’ tion. He 93; P.U.C.

.lgtion for being
eligible of Engineexing course.
He been duly admitted’ to the
course for he was required to take

” Scmcstgcf commencing fmm 31.12.2007.
permitted an take the ‘ ‘ , he
Court seeking a direction to issue the hall

_tiackct”‘i<J the examizuation eommnncing on 31.12.2007.

' « «1¢uis $':1ot in dispum that the petitioner claims the benefit
% in the percentage of marks in the
T examination namely H P.U.C. on the gmund that he

3 wp20697.0? T

4. A qucsfion Whether’ a camifiate who is regarded as
Schedu1edCmtcandSchedu}edTribcina:n;othcrStateam1
who chims that privileges given fiat Scheduicd and
Scheduled Tribes in the State of Karnataka in

adnnss’ ion to the B.E. courses a per the mlevax-_

flamed by the mspondcnt-University =

L-t–‘b5¢tL3-i{~ZLO’:_.xu¢1,_4¢A.¢fi:’}’ 9 .y _ «_ V A
admissions’ fie}! £31″ consideration ;_a

connected Wxil: Petition No.83/2oos.”‘+._mer

candida” ice from” to chim the
privikge and Schedubd ‘l’ribc
of the the said candid’ ate
bclongeq-L1″.étc_§ in the Star: of his

ongm’ ‘ as or Scheduled Trme. This

«. fig following the t of the
11 of fly Apex Court in Int?! Guuulra

9…’. W m. sea: “mm .-…u.,. ….

3 see page zaapami Action. Comnflttue on

cast; cerumeaee to sdudulcd cam and

Tribes in an mm af an Ant.

T ‘®unun cflndia an Ant. (An: 1994 sew 33053.

4 wp2069’7.07 ”

5. Th1:£acts£nthismscanadthemliefsoughtaresin1i}arto
e/ICQQL

the one invoizmi in wars Petfiion No.83/zoos. &’i’his writ

mfimnEabo . Hmem,wh%d tmmfl

writ petition this Court has issued certain directions

of the $55 oollmted towards the candid;-1te’s _

hostel charges, examination fees, etc. In

directions issued in the connected i

charges collected frgxn 3:’ am ,F_., ~ tuiiiion fee,
today. The student the original
‘by«’._iV1′;V”V’V:Pct’rtion¢:r is also held
entitled ‘ Sam the respondent.

College in a sum of R:-3e_.5;000/– as 1%spondc:1t–CoBcgc lms

” _t<_$_V't§s;;-_–sijJ;ig:;1_t_wi:thout verifying his efigibility

the matter to the University though such

aa'a,a.m1sm'* ' WW3' flak smaw.

Sd/-

Judge