- 2 _
IN THE HIGH cam'? 09' KARNATAKA AT BANC$§'§i;C)RE
DATED was THE: 291% m? OF oCr0B:.E.*é,;'%
BEFORE A'
THE H()N'BLE MR.JUi-'$T2C«E A
WRIT Pmzrxos xo.72§i4i :§¢9 "
BETWEEN: V» V 'V
Dz: Soumya M.S., -.
W"/0 Sri Subash Srikagisbaiah, . V"
Aged about 30 Years, % = '
R[at # 27"?[A, 37th Cros
831 Block, Jayaxiagar, _ - '
Banga1ore--56G;Q2s2. = PETITIONER
(By Sri T.1?i;N§fij§ifi§ia. réegtagé; -3:: {;«;unse1 for
--........._...-a... '
1. Rajiv {3rafldhi"[}Ii§VfiIS-ii? of
Hea1thLScienc;e:§_, A "
{W "T" Biack, '"
¢.";iis3»}5'?'¥§1af€8I, .....
";3afiga3o'ra_ -» 560 041,
' " Rep:z_i:'se_ut¢d._by its Regstrar.
% 2," gm gsaosn;
'-.E'atIj;kaax"$.:t1azne not known,
Ag; ngat lmswa,
Assigiiant Professor,
" 'Tr;/o J.N,Merrii<:aI coiicge,
= , Nagar,
Belgaum -- 599 010. RESPOHBEHTS
' ""{By Sri Ravi Varma Kmnar, Sr. Counsal ax.
Smt. Pallavri Shivaganga, Adv. for R-2)
This Writ Petition is filed under Article V. _V of the
{lonstitution of India praying to direct the R17 Uisizivérsity to
award the gaid mafia} in MS (ENT) to the pcti fit)'I1sr--- .fGr:..VI:1'avin,g
securing {he highfist marks in MS {ENT)- ' " T.
This Petition coming on fGI""(3~I'd'€I'S:
made the fol1owit1g:~ i
QWRWWD
1. In this Writ petition, ifs Vthc
lat I'f3$I}0I1d6I1{-R3]-iv, of Sciences to
award the Gold Medgfi {"}mdt,1ate Master in
Surgery marks. in the saiei
course 2308-09. Feziritioncr is also
<:}:1a}}:e:V:V:'z'gfi;1~ig.,::f:'§V respondent-University in
puhfififfihg of students for award of Gold
Mada} ($331: 11th Annual {lonvocation of the
to 1:$éh€.1..§«’on 26.03.2009 as regards the Ge-Id Medal
‘ -.bje~ favour of tbs 2115 respondent treating hat as
marks in MS (EMT) for the aczaaclemic year
gcéygmcég. ” 4’
‘£9, The facts leading ta the: ccsntrovmsy raised in this writ
V. jpetifion, stated in nutsheli are that the petitimu-:1: was a studernt
pmsecuting MS (EMT) coursa having been admitted during May,
5. The comma being <31' the duration of 3 years she was to
..w 3 ..
complete it during the year 2008. Petitioner wasV.:a:quircd to
take her examination in MS (ENT) during 2998.
fiowcver, as the petitioner was expecting
Maternity Leave fmm December, .2995′ 4.’$;3e\.4o§’u1d”‘
rejoin the course cmly in May, J
completefi the comma up’ fhe
(txamination only in ‘s:’:1$ ._mavrf}e up the lost
attenciancc due: tov “:1;?;i{~,- _ A iieaye period. In ‘:31:
examinaiion 2003 she scored
highest marfié Pefitioner scoreé
490 Taggregate. The University
date of convocation and the names
of the Ea given Gold Medal anti Gthfii’ Cash
pri:_=;c,~ in Apttivisfionztifiui list, the name of the pctiticner was
‘ A$§Ii3;.§71’iRat uSJ,.flNo.34.’ “” “However, on 21.03.2009, petitioner nczticed
£1′;:#{[‘ been removed finm the pmvisional List at
S1..§3o.3;-2’1» in its place the name cf the 2″” respondent had
§€1::1;t’ As the 2’13» respandent had secured 03:11}! 4′?5
aggregating to 66.5% in the course for which
‘éxaminafions were heid during March, 2008 gstitioner is
aggicrwd and has appmacheci this Court seeking a dixecfian to
the University to awaré goid medal to her.
%/
,._ 4 –
33 Sri Nanjumia Reddy, learned Senior
Comxsei appearing for the petitioner has contended that as per
the statutes framed by the Univemity to
Fel1oWsIn’§/ Studentship] Stipend] Med:-axis _ 4′ Vt ” V. évide
Notifieafion. dated 03. E 1. 1997, a candidate
highest marks in each of the :–e)iaA’Vm”‘3’n« atitm,.;«p:’esg:t’ibeti fat
course in the first attempt firsttiéctatsg 1.2ot’::tee-ethan A
65% of the marks in the in. the sutfiect
shall be eligible for awatjd of&VGoIt{_:MeiiaI. the attention
of the Court to Clausettétllef Lhe. submits that $31 the
instatit “ease #12213 satisfied the um” ’12 conditions
of se<V:Vju«I'i';t1g';'.'.t):V'§ighev$t"'~-zfigrks and (b) in the first attempt,
petitioneeéeas entitled to be awarded the Gold
u Meéali. It is hi'1ie……further contention that the action of the
' in aiterirzg the pmvisional list by deleting
petitioxter 911 the basis ef the Nofifieation dated
issneci by the resp0z1cEent»University mcszpetafing
., tgdtfltifienal cmiclittien tn the eflect that the student caneemed
have ates eorapieted the course it: the minimum possible
' Vt "tduration by .'36€:t2.I'iJ:1g highest marks in MS {ENE cannot have
the efieet of supezeetling the statutes framed by the Gniversitggz.
Alternativeiy, it is oontendeti by him that even aesuming that
%"
….. E} ..
the Notificafian dated 13.03.2003 is issued £11 aocrgitiance with
iaw and is valid, it camaat be said that the ‘i駒V:.iV§t:s;.]igiblc
on the gimund that she has net c01I1£3Ie'{:3{1′”~ {h6
minimum possible duratian. 113;’ §i]”§3;{}()’I’1″T Of:.}’IfiV$’.L>£’V):i1’if:3VI1fi’.ii?’Il
Nanjlmda Raddy has placed 1:511 V the.’
Apex {l’m;u1: in the cast: VS.’
MEDICAL comma, guaaagfisksm up A§Ié)1′.5m1=:3[(1987) 3 sec
478).
4. Sri Rayififiéxgna Counsei appearing
for the that the statutes framed
by their proper perspective
mcoéfijsefi Eroncemed must have passed with
highest “;m:~}:s iéxamination in question at the figs:
.’;-*;ttt.§g3’»V.pLt;. on the expzessiarns used in Clause 11 cf
.A jibe: s?;%§tute$;”‘**Qn1y a candlidatc W119 has passed with the highest
of the e:g__wamL1’nation’, he eontends that in the
i:i§{an£ éa:sé, the examinafien in question for which film Gold
M~2:daI iIs! to be awantled is the examiitzaticzx. conducted after the
‘ is eompieted i.e. to say during the month of Match, 2008
” if that petitioner fer any reason has made herself 11:31: eligible
to appear during this examinaticm, it will discntitic her fium
claiming eligibiiity for award of Golci Medal as per Ciause I 1 0f
95/
._ g ._
the Statutes. He points out that the End mspontientliaving been
afimitted to the course during the academic upon
completion of three yearg was éligibler and
exanzinatiun dunlng Mamh-Ap1’i1 2{}08.
the examination and was the 3
announced for the examiifiafioa qucafiflg the
academic year. Hcxgccz, _su1:.)’1:i1issi0ni§ that the 2″”
respondent qualifiesvéis of Gold Medal.
He: draws V_.atte:1itic:11:V¥ ta A11nexurc~R2 —
.’t k’1;::”S”féxtement of objecfions by
the {hat the reqtfirement of
co1Ii?;§1eti;z°:AgAA i’;3:’};c minimum possible: duration and
for ciaiming entitlamttnt
fcgg ‘gtwaxd ao§ Gfiild .:i’v!eda}.. This mqujrement having been
in the year 2903 and firm exammafiafi in
been conducted as 125;: as in the year 2098,
At’h_.erev_.is éfisélutely no jnstificaficm for the pfititifillflr to contend
A fl1ai:?§§h1§}€fiOfl of the period within minimuxn possible duration
V’ = Qtight not to he insisted upon. He aiso centendg that a proper
tmdcxstanding of the statute along with the Noiification will not
in any manner result in infioducing any adéitiemal mqtliremmxt
What has been actuafly comsmplaied in the statute framed
.. ‘3 ._
by the: University on 03.11.1997, At any rate, he {hat
the Notrificatimfx Am:n::xuz’e~R2 is well and
jurisdiction of the respondctnt-University is
introducttd keeping in mind tI1e:v:iééI;<2.:im.;a1fi:;:i gearing expigssxsa
by the Bangalore ENT Trust, c§6n§§r~ for fiicdais. A
He has also pointed out no "f¥.u1}#Ej§v_:X«€f;3V7vi;('f'}i1V'<§V:I0t1l€:$'§'t'}1C
petitioner £0 avail {fig piiosccufing the
studies in the P. G. given by the
University to the pctifiéficrnfifiovaaréfilfgenafit and to appear
for the is a ccncession shown
to her her to lay an. iiiegal ciaim on
the which is in fact duct to the End
1'cspon€£::1; L, ' '
RN.K;Ra.;.:_1€sh, learned counsel appeaxéag for the
' ;;rf:3;3o:1d&fit:Unjversity taking me through the statement of
xcontendts that there is as facility of availing any
durirag tftm duration of thc cmirse ané {ht
V. "}3e:g:gafif 9f Maternity Leave which is appiicabic only to persons in
'"V.s1£:'ivice, cannot; be avaiixzd by 3 stuétsznt prosecuting the studies.
' " '-"£11 any citveni, the same: cangaot be made use of in a caursc of
study like Post Graduate Medical Course. He fllffhfii' contends
that the respondent~Univ€:rs:ity task a lament vierssz 12:1 gmeating
fir"
….. 8 ..
permission ta extend the course for a period of months
taking new of the fact that she was expecting such
permission granted shouid not be cons&ng:j{i””t_r;;)
Goid. Mada} contrary to the gt1ide!:::iés’ ‘gf-Z1\:f£’i’¥’1fI,”‘L{Li§5*,A,:’§’ihf:VV§_.f:;i;IiZif.f’3f
6. fiaving heard the for on
catttful consideration of the’t fécofii, i find that
Clause 1 1 of the Un1ivt:rsi”t:yHon 03.1 1.199?
requires that in Voxtier £9 of Gold Medai, the
candidates muéifiaveiipasséfi marks in each of the
exarn:’natiéir1 fiofiifié’ in the first attempt in the
first VcI3i§’§;-[.§}i3;ta;”&n:::§i1g 65% of marks in the
axamifzatian subject. It is 3.11 admitted fact
that the 15612133 is of three ysars duration and after
comfisleficnvé of examinations, cczxzvocatioxa for awmdifig
‘ 1:26 conducted. Both the petitioner am} the 2%’
1*fi$;ponde1iiL:«c§:iemmeuced their c-nurse éurirzg the academic 3:633:
285%} “£5′.jV;.e§?”.<;z:"erc mquzkeé ta tmdargo fibres years COUISE.
As {:33 be $661} finm paragraph 4 of the statement of
ofzjactiens fiied by the z'esp01::dent-Umiversity, the ceursc is an
itztegrateti program with specific: ctnmécuia and schedule. 80%
0f attendance is required for every acadenlic training pexiod of
ii"
…..Q_.
every yam anti each year is taken as a unit for {he of
calculating the attendance. While the 2&1 I’6S}i}(x)13§fi’LfV¥;’l:'{“;§§)V}’f3{iJtv)1€t€d
the course by putting in that Iequimd a£tendai§§c 113$
ymscribed éuration of three year§;’,”‘1i5é:’tit.iQI;1§:r .t:1ot:V::11(ie11$;, she cannot
gompcte of Gold Medal having
due dated 03.11.}.99’7 read
with thgg 1 13.03.2003 issued by the
I’€S§)()1?’fa’l’ié3;I:I4″(‘Z*UI”1§’i%¥(‘éiV¢.iVA1T_y’;,’ of all, patitioner having 110?;
coI§1;”;lt=;§:ed §:}:1(~_ within the required dlzufation and having
‘ _ co1:1(:£;§:§;ion by the University enabling her to take
upV oniy during October 2008, cannot compete
féspcnéent to: deny her claim. Secondly, as back as
in 2903, the University has mafia it clear by issuing a
VP«i_{_>$:f:i{:ation that the Sftldfifli claiming award of Goid Mercia}
‘;:;h¢_:-uld have passed in the first attempt and simuid have:
complctsd the course in the minimum possible duration
stscrufing highest marks. Thcrefcam, the Nafificaticn proves
-1%’
.. if} _..
beyond the paie: of doubt the requirement that 131.: student
concerned must have (;'()}’fipit3t€d the course Withiiij
possibic period or duration fixed for the comiéé.
case, as the 12%’ respondent has safisficd f;hése”:ct;v.iz*ei13en’ts, AV
the responde11t~UI3iversity has s*fibsfirg§1e§1 by ‘A
conztzcting {he mistake th.{-itjhad 15623:: “jt::ar]ieé” in
showing the name of the petifjnféger, ..
8. Aithough léarneg Naajunda Recidy
centends Nofiificéfién nms contraxy to the
statute dlll”-‘:1ti{)I1 as one of tbs
critemji’-:$i,”Vt’i:;:e:f..§é, contention. as the Statute
and do nest Show that there is any
inconsist£§1*:cy”b¢t§vée:i same’ The Notificatricm clarifias and
. whata iiass-…!:1een stataé in the Statute. At any rate, the
‘ that the petitioner has not completed the course
‘Wii;’.:iz’n ‘ti§éfj:;: fimscfibed clmafion and has beren only ahovm
iefiixgég the University to take up the examination during
.. AALhx’:’._’I.I3.(V)VJfl’if11 of Oz;-teber 2066, afiez’ a laps: of sh: months. This
shows that the petitiozmr cannot lay any legitimate claim
‘ VV ” the Gold Medal awarded to the candidates who am successful
after complatiogn 0f the regular course Lil} the examinations held
far the said academic year.
W
…»,1″iw…
9. Reliance placed by the ieamed Counsel on’ jizglgment
of $116 Apex Conn: in the case of
Govnnxmrrr MEDICAL coL1,§.:GE, ; “;a2§::. _
AHOTHER [(1987) 3 sec: 473] £53 not..é1A}’%»p E;sji;l;e.’ to4’t1<;.g:Z_%_fa»;,:s' age. 5
circumstances 01' the prcsc11t'_'cas-:5." the
Apex Ceuri was i;:1terp:eting'v'V%'t}f..1 Vé pmviisiewgifs ' in Rule
131.5(6) of the Rules of Iéesicients which
has aaothing in common ti}
10. For this wrét petition being
devoid 01′ dismissed. The University
is ciizfectgri’t§’V.-v:g1;é«.%steg§- award the 001:1 Medal to the sand
respondzméi as $13 possible.
7 I, &&&&& Sd/*4;
Iudgef