. my $91: E*'?fRi§I3EEP rié,' ADV.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT _
DATED THIS THE 24m my OF_q'U'I'§Y"2iOiG94
PRESENT"; 7*'
THE HONBLE MR. PD. J:js3T1c:E
ANIE" M
THE HONBLE MR§.:USTiCE g;.~é.§V;%30PANNA
WRIT AP?1§:AL No. €2%;§76/':;¥.r;;w9 {£:£5N--RES)
BE'I'WEEN;=i' " ' " '
Dr. AKR~AM'AMF;NI "A.H'MAD"""'~--
AGED ABOLET 5-v':s YE13;RS« . _'
RIAT No.4,' Bi;0cK.;~.:Q;,23';T._3R? EAST man
END, MoB1_N'LANE._, i?OU_R¥AI VAL} STREET
:2 FARVARIHN S'l'R~E}E"i','
EN'Gi»-EELAB SQUARE, TEH RAN IRAN.
~ ' APPELLANT
1 M s ~R_}§'MAIAH MEDICAL COLLEGE
'GOKUL EX'i'ENSiON, MSR NAGAR
MSRIT POST, BANGALORE 54
" = _RE§>.BY ms PRiN CIPAL
"RA.JEEvAGANDm UNIVERSYYY
32"') CROSS 4'33 'T' BLOCK
NEXT TO SANJAYAGANBHI HC)SPi'}'AL
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 11,
REPBY ITS REGISTRAR.
_L
f...
3 THE DEAN
DEPARTMENT OF' ANAE'T§iESiOLOGY
M.S.RAMAIAH MEEDICAL COLLEGE
GOKUL EXTENSION, MSR NAGAR
MSRIT POST, BANGALORE 54.
4 'THE BANGALORE UNIVERSITYM' ' _4
JNANABHARATHI, BANGALORE, j '
REFIBY ITS REGISTRAR
THIS WRIT APPEAL 3,1539 U13 _4-,_ "::} zz~
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT AC3*'L'.PRAYING~.TO-SE1'; ASIDE
THE ORDER PASSED lN.-------- WR1Tv..'.1?EFiTIOI\¥
No.14126/2008 SATED' ;s;f06..r2QQ9...._ ,
T1}is_VApp<i=iai~:.:;pVn'1i.1iVg:::(§i1'Pf%e1imina1y hearing this
day, BOP,é§HN}§.J.,"»...A(ie1iveréé the following 2
'~ '
The {H"1.SuccE:ssf:.1i'}:éétitioner in w.?. $3.141» 12612008
" is; be§érg.._/was (Jazzy: assailing the order dated
by the leamed Single Judge. The
pfayér in the Writ Petition was to issue a
o3;*r,i(_é;' or dixecfien directing the respondents to
the process ta issue the: iflregree of ‘Doctor of
friilosophy (Meciici11e)’in vivo studies on Buprenorphine
$7
(High Dose) Pharrmacokinetics and _
i1’; coronaly artery by Pass gnait suxfgely. ; – V
2. The case of the appé_1is;}t is’-teat’
Ph.D., course in the after
eompletion of her gi@i§I’fi6 from Iran
Medical Uriiveursfig-:_’ at: respondent-
Coflege is 1;’-9
She is on 10.11. 1992 and
compie ted.” and submitted thesis in
Septembefeel 996 isiclaimed 1:0 have been accepted
,_’_oy Vhesponéent. Dmmg this period, the
to have taken help of the pmfessors
3:2» compieting this task. ‘ ‘he first
VK., =.,resp0nc¥e:11§~Co1iege’ is also said to have helped the
‘s. appLe1?.ant :0 seek additional scholarship from the
h K cvsncemed department of the Iran Cr€)V€3I’I.”1]I1€il’C.
J
‘.I”
3. The grievance of the appellant is, though the
respondents recognised that the appeila13.t_7l
completed the research work and submittedthe _
and though they have accepted the same’,’ = ll ” =
degee is not awarded inspite of severjal..1e’eq11estS’. ‘it A
4. The respondents Who: the
learned Single Judge uizave claim of the
8.pp6B.afi|;’.”~ Al’ the Raiiv Gandhi
Urflvereigr hfirflversity have taken up
a definite’ appellant has not been
‘~ in eitIie1″v——£7 the said Universities for the Ph.D.,
to the Ph.D., course can be
only the regulations and a College cannot
‘ -grant agtllhission to a student of the ?h.D., course. It is
[“‘–§§::ereibre contended that the frst respondent mereiy
K a College could not have in any case enrolled the
‘ appellant. 1)
*7.”
5. In this background, it is to be nofieled *
the year 1992 when the appeflant eiajms K 2
the first respondent-«College
affiiiateci to the Bangalere at in ” ‘
izime. Theneafier, the zfigjst Veeme to
be afiiliated to the of Health
Sciences during: of the
Bangalore the same would
indicate ft)’ flzapply for registration
for theVVV”P§’§.’D;, file prescribed form to the
Registrar, §’é*:I1:’g2″xlt51:’eA”‘UV1d{i.Versity during the months of
V. or” after paying the
“} The application is required to be
1 ibiwarded the recognised Gllide and the name
the is to be mentioned. The candidate shetlid
alga work in the University, Post Graduation
-éepart:1:£1eI1t, as indicated therein or in any College
‘ A’ which is aifiliated, provided the College has full time
J
/..’
Post Graduate Degree Course. The I’Cgl_1lati0IIv$’::é}SO
provide that no candidate shall join any cours’e”‘of”‘ %
without prior permission of the Ph.D_..,~~ ”
committee. The regulations also .’
details.
6. In the of f=eqifiIements of the
regulations, there is,A’1’z’:;>’tVIfiAiIii,c*=,’,.t_”=.’-?_<'-"~' that the
appe11ax1t'ohaafj:;n regis-tereij"i1erselt' with either of the
Urliversitiesfoz" .tI'1e ;- Therefore, even. if the
appellant hé1dVVobtg;.jIiedV'I'egistration or certificates from
V' "the '-iit'st,_Ares'pondei1t"a:id if any assistance or guidance is
takereg — professors as contended, the same
Wotitfi not etivence the case of the appellant any further.
'These "asf)ects of the matter have been adverteci to in
VA by the Ieamed Single Judge and the analysis
.m:;1de by the learned Single Judge does not indicate any
" error so as to call for interference.
t
I
V" Vjtfhtfis A
In that view, we are of the opinion that.;1'ie *
appea} is devoid of merits. The "same V
dismissed. N0 order as to costs.
.. _Ch'ie£ 1;.e:tice
% Iuaqe
Index: Yes jN<5 ,
Web fisat L;Yes'j;;~so ' ~