V I »Age:.Mmjar, Cfc National Imtflxtc of Mental
F"TTT,P;B.N'o.29oo, Hosu: road,
IN THE HIGH COURT 0:? KARNATAKAAT
BANGALORE f
DATED THIS THE 06"' DAY OF Q *
THE H()N'BLE MRJIJSTI(fEAfi!fLU§A!;;iI;G.iI§M'E§H
WRIT PET1T1oNTTS6.1o10oT mi %
BETWEEN: " % H
Dr.Bharauaj.N.Banava}ikar',.. "
SfoN.M.Ba:;azralik;ar,' '
Age: 24 Muhéssaf'
5* Block, ':a.'..*1'V:Ma.i'l'4$ T'-':3?
Beizimi. " ' "
T
..PE'I'ITIONER
(By Sri.Vighnegl§waT..S.SiTastn;')SdTT')
1 .Nan'ona1' Hwth
7 &;«-Nsuro University),
PiB.No.29oo,Ham Road,
'fiaggalémj-29, T
" M§da,
* Nauru Science (Deemed Universfiy),
Bamgalcro-29. ...RESPONI)ENTS
(By Mfs.P.S.Rajagopal Associates, Adv. for CIR-1
This Writ Pe£1uon' ' is filed under Am: of
the Constitution cf India praying to _
R], as per Ann-E a1adf:2tc'.,»----. A "
This Writ I>eem' eemmg' eye in
'B' Gtoup this day,theCoi:st_f9}1cu§v§:nag;_v_VV
oe.pe,__e;.__e
Petifioner of writ of eereeeeee
queehieg the ee-ae.» ;eo.*z§9:s%e£ 'E' wssed by the
issue a writ er a direcihon doclarm' g
the e N02 to D.M.Neumlogy course in
%. 1* in place of petitioner as ifiegal and
e e oflaw and fee such other reliefs.
u 2. Aeeeedmg to the after completing his
. :>:"jlA'\5.B.B.S. degree Emu Mysore Medical eenege being interested
is: DJUI. Ncumlogy course: on the applicatimas «flied for by the
l"'respondentforthcsaidooutw,peitiiioncta@rfiform
writ1:enexminafionwm*einhewassuccmfidmtdsecmed4&
3%”
. V 2 t smtan’ g tha the 2″ respondent was
F tn; the original cerufm on or befene
on 9.7.08 he produced the mac and fizat he has
mask in the entrance test. The seiected candidates to
appear for counseling and before which, they in
produce their original eerfificates for
a.m. on 2.7.03 failing which
for counseling. The 2″‘
rank who had appeared :0.-e§c.mse:;ng head
pmduce any of the in the
instructions as and fine petitioner
who course
and the emznseligiyghiesee said to have
submitted ali his time of counseling
and pursuant hhehshas paid the registration
fee expecting his admissien
he was mlecmd in the selection
end tehhhiais ‘elmck he received 3 letter dated 10.7.03
admitted mad the ease of the petitioner would be
9*”
4
considered in any future vacancies. Stating that permitting the
Tdrespondenttoproducetheoxiginalcertificatasetalaterdate
is contrary to the rules and the same is discrimiigatmy and
arbitzary and that petitioner should have
as he has secured 4″‘ rank in the merit list.
the originals at the time of
admission made by me, 1″ respeedeet the
respondent to the petitioner’ is
before this Court. m it i F ii
i’ 3. {loensel fer the respective parts” s.
i’s«.the.suhznissien of the learned Counsel for the
. as per the regulaticms of respondent No.1-
on the date of counseling on 2.7.08 in the morning
ieglmae petitioner has produced all the crigiaal certificates and
in ” « rsinee the 2″‘ respondent has failed to produce the erim als,
petitioner being the next candidate in the merit list, he shtmid
have been given admission by the 1″ respondent. Though, in the
cmmseling held he was made to pay the admission fees, he was
kept in the weieeg list eed to the contrary the
had been admitted te the said course which eme
rules.
5. Per—contra, me eeee 1″
respondent has eubeened js vested with
the authority and since the 32?’ has produced the
eustodiaxe. etfifixive Kakinada University
reeheeiegpéeeiieeeedyeneeeigieeaeem:-e 2*” respondent, altheugh
edmission, his admission could have
in event if the 2″” respondent hm not
% %% the ‘eegsee: testimonials on the appointed we to be
$
to produce the certificates and since he has
pegdeeea all the certificates well within the specified date he
‘A preferred as against flee pefitioner, as sach, them is no
V ‘ ‘ illegality in admitting the 2″” respondent who is meritorious end
thediscretionexercisedtaopmdueethcmmeatalmerdateis
neifizer arbitrary not illegal. Accordingly, in stepped pf his
Xv
. W -*6″ ‘
argument, the learned Counsel fat the 1″
upon the ruling reported in (2005)9 Sllpmme
in the case of Dolly Chhnnda Vs..Cha_j’nna§i”.’fe§ l L
* =6; In llghtlof ” V
whether “any megasigy in lid the 2′”
respondent to at a later date
and in admitfillg1′ who has producad
all the of cm-mscl-ing itself’?
upon by the 1′ respondent
refcnfito ejbszaxifltinlejll Court in paragnph 7 of the ma
jifigtncnt tlzxat, ‘wary infractitm of the rule relating to
~ proof need not necessarily result in rejection of
H ” In the insmmt case, theugh there is a delay in
the original cemmsass by the 2″‘ respondent, but
was a reason for the delay and fiat the 2″” respondent has
produced an endorsement from the University with whom he
had deposited the originals and in order to give him a chance
since he was a merited candidate and the
interview well on time, the discretion was .1″
respondent-Institution to give §_1in3__soma” “25”
produce the testimonials ” ‘A
certificates well within fl;’n%$:_: ‘;¢.§i’fA5.”e€:1__
sigma he was 39 was
accepted and he oeursc.. in
the ratio Iafid new that submission
ofcandidntme. Hm, the
dimian in giving
soxfié’ “the 2″‘ respondent to produce the
to be Gt’ illegal. In the
there is no merit in the contention of the
3. Accordingly, petition is dim:-issed.
sd/-
Bkp. ‘Judge