.....l....
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 14'-*1 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010.»
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE1 SABDUL "7 '
WRET PETITION No.26832 (W26-10'
BETWEEN:
KUM. ROOPALAXMI
1:)/o LATE KRISHNA DEV
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
R/AT DOOR NO."i'm112,
MOIZ)U-- SAGRU WARD, ._ # ~_ V .
MANOLIGUGI. SHIVALLI ViLL._AGE;._
UI)UPI~5'i'6102 ' ;V PETITEONER
{By M/8;." b1%,5§:aMAsHi{EE: Ass::C(:*1uArr§;s, ADVS.}
1 TH EESTATE 017' KARNA_H'AI{A
VREP BY*3'.f'S SECRETTALRY
Ms. BUILDING.
._ _"~AI_'_JEBE.DKAR V'E3E'7..}HI,
BANG_AI«_.QREw56O 001
I VEs2§fEc:A%f;'E~Q'F*§'1cER
"--.~'CEN'T£2.AL>ISED ADMISSEON CELL.
CE}1'€'i'_R;£'L[, JUNIOR COLLEGE BEHLDING.
" ROAD, BANGALORESEO 002
h 'rmé:v1cE CHANCELLOR
"~«.MANGALoR1R ms " * ~-- C 1'
SR1 KANAND, ADV. FOR R2?!' "
SR1 M.1.ARUN, ADV. FOR
ASHOK HARNAHALLI A,( T ":jVs§ ' «Bf.yOR.,V§\1] _ ., , . 77: .
THIS WRIT PB3'I'E'I'ION rs F11-;eb.UNDERAR'rieCifi£ é'2eAND V
227 OF THE c0Ns'm'U'r10N OF INULA. P.RAY1N'GffO QUASH THE
CIRCULAR DATED 20....03.2Qri'0 -- THE "MA£\EGALORE
UNIVERSITY, RESPONDENT N03, . [\F{.lT_)'1§3_ 'ANNE:XURE A} AND
THIS wR1T’PErri’1f1’ON * V(:;oM1.1Sssr; (§.N..:F'{a)’R PRELIMINARY
HEARING ‘B’ cgtiamgp T3152; DAY; ‘[‘H_IE}.V_QQ[JR’1’ PASSED THE:
FOLLOWING_:,. ~
y ‘ AQAAL
T’h«e”peiit_ibriferMwas.__a’d_r1iitted to the 501 respondent
coliege forthe » cV).’t”=;,1’~’5′ year B.Ed., Course for the
acafiexnie year’ She was admitted by the
” V’ ‘-v_y(:o11ege:y_i;1 its n1a1″1’a1~§e111e11t, quota. She has passed BSC.
aggregate marks in the B.SC. is 745 out
“‘<:»f h-1+50011ntjliiriing the marks obtained in internal
assE:ssr__ne1:5u.'{)€l_..” _}’i’he
petitioner has challenged th_el”s_aid_q communication in
this Writ petition.
for PE_>t.ietlVor1;3.;§_~eontend t.hat the petitioner has
scored includes the marks obtained
byxjqheree. in t’l1.e_Vllin.t,erna1 assessment. The eligibility
. erit_eri._a wfozfadmission to the course in question for the
H 200940 has been stated ion the
brolcht1re”i4ssued by the State Governnient. As per the
2 “sat-:1 brochure, it is sufficient if the student belonging to
the general merit category secures 45% in the qualifying
e,xam.i11ation. The petitioner having scored 49.66%
marks was eligible for admission to the course in
E
“Ky
__ 4 ..
question. ‘l’herei’ore. the University ought to have
approved the admission of the petitione1*.
3. On the other hand, Sri Ml ”
Counsel appearing for the Uni\=*ersit.ycontends t1’1at_ as-‘
per the Regulations of the”Universi»t.f, a Irlerit
candidate has to secure not taking
into consideration thVE3’».p.ria.rlt.§’ examination of
all the three years e2{:e’l{i’di:r:ig.”‘iriternalifaslsessment and
class not secured 50%
marls:s:<,_in 'with__the eligibility criteria fixed in
the Regulationijniversity. That is why the
admission of ti1e_VVpet.ii:i.on.er has not been approved.
2 learned Advocate appearing for the
4*" fcsp¢nd':}11t, submits that Section 32 of the National
Co1:.r1eil"for Teacher Education Act, 1993 {for short 'the
}%§.(ét'.'} provides for making Regulations to earryout the
purposes of the Act. In exemise of the power conferred
under t;l'1e said provision, the NCTE has framed
E
E
__ 5 ……
Regulations known as ‘National Council for Teacher
Education {Recognition Norms and Proceciiire]
Regulations, 2009’, which provides for the
standards of Bachelor of Education Prograinrney llfiadlfigl «.
to B.l33d. Course. Clause 2
Regulation provides for eligibility for
admission of the students As per
the said clause, the 50% marks
either in the I.3a:ei1elor:’s” l\llaster’s degree
or any other are eligible
for adn1is_sioli*i’«”tf\»._the’prograrrime. The notification has
been gazetted Neither the State
Goyvernn1ent”‘nor the University can fix any norms,
than what has been prescribed by the
H petitioner has secured less then 50%
marl<..s"in qualifying examination, she is not eligible
A V. ior"admfi.ssion to the said course.
5. Sri K.Anand, learned Advocate appearing for
iespondent No.2 and Sri M.KeshaVa Reddy. iearri-ed
_ 5 ..
Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 submit that the
State Govemment has framed Rules in CX€1″(3iSéE?,sUf1€
powers conferred on the State Gove1*11m_e’fit:~fL:–nd¥::_1″
Section 14 of the Karnataka Edneatio1’1aE’~J.i§st.it1jt.i.o1;s”
{Prohibition of Capitation tee] .i
is applicable for admission *s__tude’nts to
by the State Government. eligibility
criteria for admission The minimum
marks for they pt’1rposeVoi”. Course for
a general it
Bnfiaving’-the contentions urged, the
question for etansideréition is:
the petitioner was eligible for
adniisdsion to B.Ed., course for t.he academic
“session 2009-20101».
7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had
obtained 745 marks out of 1500 marks in agg§regat.e in
the qualifying examination namely, BBC. In other
.. ‘7 __
words. she has secured 49.66% after including the
marks in the internal assessment. The Regulationfiof
the University Clearly indicates that. the m21rk.s”‘obt:’ai.ned__ _
in the internal assessment has to be ex(:11.1cieedfl.Whether6
the marks in the internal &1SS€SSITI;€1″£’;”has to be”in’C;I:ur__jeec}_A
or not need not be Consi’d.ei’e§i in”v-this v§{ritf;3etit’ion, . *
because even after the of l3j1’1t€3I’1’lE11
assessment marks, flseenred 49.66%
marks in 6 If We go by
notification Stateijfifioyeirnmeiit, the marks
obtaiiied in has to be included. If the
said are”‘inei_nded.;’bercentage of the marks will
be b_e1ow 5O%”.AA._iTherefore, petitioner was not eligible for
the course in question. The NCTE
‘F3.eg–t1’1atio’r_i-__ eleeirly iridieates that a general merit
ean J
KLY /