Kranti Kumar Lohar vs Rajiv Gandhi University on 16 July, 2009

 A. t Rag_i\i'«:.Ga;"1d12i Ufii'Jersi.ty of
._ "fieaith 'fieieizees
 4% ""F.B1oC;'.s:  e .
"J.a39-*aria§ia':r. " Ak

_    "This Writ Petition is filed under Articies 226 and
  2:2'? of the Censtimtien of India praying to quash the
 '"i.1:s1pugned notification at AJ:mexure--F dated 11.9.2098

* issued by the respondent Urliversity anti to direct the

-1-

IN THE: HIGH cone’? 0? KARNATAKA AT _
DATED THIS THE 16TH I)A’§r’f)F JULY»’.§§1Q:§–.::: _ T L:
BEFORE _ « %d L V
THE HoN’eLE MR. JfueTIe’ee%e.s.P.:;fie*::§%e,e
WP. N0.19965/2é®,:(EpN;RES):’i

BETWEEN

Kranti Kumari I_.(‘2}’;aI’ “

S/0.Arjun Rae’ Ltyhar
Finai Year – V
Govemmerifi Ayillvedic é C{}i1ege.e’
Anand ”

Bangalore 56’0j_{){}9’i.4 .4 . .. Petitioner

egg}: sri’Ajey’ Patil, Adv.)
And: .

Ba ngalere 155E304 1.

Rep;-. by.__’i{5~ Regetrar Respeiicient.

(By Sri N. K. Ramesh, Adv.)

respondent iiniversity to recalculate the marks secured
by the petifioner after the ehalienge vaiuation of III

-3-
BAMS & 11 BAMS axaminations Conducted by

I’€SpOI1d€1}t University in <}8I}1IaI'_Y 2009 in the,§2.1¥§jfi'cts~4

1) Prasooti Tantra &Stre€ Raga 2) Kaya Chikis§a’I”a’I;1dj’II _

3) Kayachista III & W 815 4) Shalya Tai11;rajV’-sf (iii;
Professianal BAMS and Rasashaira ~ {‘_:’3h:3i$3.}a_
Kaipana of II Pmfessional BAMS 7«.a1:>;31_yir1g.

Ordinance at A11nexure–A dated 3ii).8.:2G€’}8.’»._ _

This Writ Petitien ‘en for
Hearing this day, the Court the fo31_:>wi:1g:”-_

~QRI};ER” ‘fa
Sri. NR. Ramesh, »»g_j(.:;uI1s{3i for the
Rajiv Haéith-:»Sfiences is directed to
W
x As’ is cavered by thfi decision

I’€I1d(i’f’f?d “similar v§*1’it”‘ petitions, with the consent of

. .”‘th¢”gM§r1:i€:s,”A’:Zf;e méiiiéf is taken. up for final disposal.

V’ .Vv’I9£§f:it§;0:1er has sought for quashing the

‘ _ N0At:i3’ica.1_3′{3r2, féé.ted 1}.O9.20{)8 issusd Vida AI”iII£€X”€.}I’€-F

Dby _t_he “r€:sp0z3de;1t — University. A direction is also

‘sdiigiit it) the ;’esp{}I1deni:–U11iversi’:y to mcalcuiate the

méwks sacured by the petitioner in the chailenge

-4-
eounsei for the petitioner. Paragraph~14 of the said

judgment reads as under:

“14. This Court makes it Clear ~
Court is not interferiiag with the pelicy
of the University, ix1asm13.eh,__’ it _~
domam ef the Urfiversity jet’ ‘;;e1i¢aes_ ,_ f
and modifying or repealing the”same,’..”.ifileedf
be, from time to iin1e,”v..E}3ut, in» ;t:he en’

hand, the pe1;if:ionezjs—- LAasSai}i11g ftlae

cor1’eéfi1e_:-Se process of
theewv A’ Veaforementioned, the
1:§iifQcc:se.VV me Vice~Cham:e}10r in
issi;§._negeea1i1eé19}£:3.ec§:_’ Nefiiéziafionf Grdinarzce dated
X -2.,1.09D2{}_:{}8V.(.:a1;§:1ef “be suetained in the eye of

“*1a§,.v_. Accoféiifigy, the following arder is made:

._ 3{g) of the _impt,1g1ed
_ ‘eotifieseien/oremance dated 11.99.2008
iségeeix by the respo:1de:1t–U:1iversity, S’€.811dS
* s 4_ qziésheé. The respsnderztifjniversity is _

–f”di3:’e(:”te<ii to reeaieuiate the marks secureci by
the petitioners in the chaflenge vaiuation of

the examinations conducted in January, 2009

without appiying Clause 3(g) of the Notificefiefl
dated 11.9.2008, but by applying the

6/

. . . . .

W5-

providsd in Clause 3{g) of the said No£ifiCat:i<:flV–:
stand quashed. The respoI2den'£~University.- iii; '
to :'€:C3lCL1l8.t6 the marks obtaine.d~~b3z'

applying the method provided in :€i_1£;i:tv1s'e"–§:3:'(c;}V
Notificatiozl dated 30.08.2G(}SVL:'L:'issuéd 'V L'
Resp0nde;1t~U2'3iversity_ by
complying with thé above

\viti1i:1 two wee?-u§f1f§:–m " A

7. Sfi. ” P€:i’fl1itted :0 file his

valialatly 1I;g$:TA1:iiV<3 ?::i* Within three weeks.

‘(i:’,1/Iiie. gtirdéz’ handeci over to thc caunsel

Sd/g-E
Itidéé’