IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BAN§AI;dRfEt<%
DATED THIS THE 19*" DAY or MARCHQQOQQ A' =
BEFORE t x
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A;sHc:1(B.
Writ Paflflnn Nn_9'na;fi2_ nf ahnj 'rt§A:s,-i$&1'
BETWEEN
Kurn. Soumya H, V V
DIG Hannagangaiam.
Aged about 24 y_aas*§,'_v
Residifiq at ivio._1:;:, , ., p
6"' Cross. 4"' ii Mafianf
Chandana Extension', '
Sunkadakatte,
Banga|otfe--560AG£¥V1._é -.
% _ PETIHONER
* tIBy'9rI"A}v--. ,§:;mgadharappa, Advocate]
_ AND__{' "
,
_ viétfé;-sI4§ara!eh Technolwical J:~..-.'ers!t',',
" » Be:gaurfr:.--590 014,
* Kavrrataixad' State,
'' "*VRepres'e~ntéd by Its Registrar (Evaluation).
V --V 2. "4"'E)oiaV.B¢5:-itzo Institute of Technology,
f5angaiore--560 074.
Kurfibaigodu,
~ Mysore Road,
RESPONDENTS[By Sr! Arvlnd Kulkarnl, Advocate for
Sr! Basava Prabhu S. Patll, Advocate for R1,
R2 sewed]
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and
for the
constitution of Indie preying to eeesh the !ette?”‘dt–t.1’3,i 1,-,2t1.,t.1?
vide Annexure-K and etc.
This petition coming on for v.hearl.ng t_hi’s.4.’d,ay,.,’
Court made the foilowinfi: A_ p A.
The petitioner’s gdevancel’l’is’,v:thet the ‘._re’spoun;dent’s order,
dated 19″‘ November, not keeping with
the order, dated ,1″ Octoher,–..2.dO1i?, this Court in writ
“.11-1-I-im-. Lin ‘l’:!”‘i.V,E’I”,”n.4-“”‘!l’Il”\E i A
|JI=u|.IuII IVLI-J.JI.’.JJ.:.*,’.Il ‘V.1.t.3lv’\J’J. :_ ‘_ ._
2., …. the…cese are that the respondent
found the ‘«petition’er:’g,ti”iiti[“~~of ‘certain examination malpractice
end pa-.sed the punitive erder, dated 23″‘ September, 2095
:n….- ..-a_ _..a. ._-..n.n-.. -1 n.L… …..z-_ n.. ._ _n_.___.:_.__|
U’-‘\i1fi&.’XUfI::”H} IHE YEFEVGHE POITIOH OI’ HIE OTCIET I5 Xllfa EEO
herel,hbelow~;,f~~. __
.__”‘V%”Deni’ai1V.oii benefit of performance of the fixaminations
“- conducted during June 2006.
_ Rejection of semester results, Readmisslon, change of
V ” «..ce!.ie.ge and change of seer;-e e.n.=.- not
Mnf nnrmifhnzi In falrn arlmiccinn In flu: hinhar gal-nae!-nr
I’VE FIVHIUIIIUIN-‘I-‘ U’, IFITIEI ‘IHIFFIUJ-JIIIII I? “I’m! l’I””‘%l’ 3\i””Ef;’¥”
till the redeeming of punishments imposed.”
3. This order was challenged by the petitioner in writ
FiE’H.
petiti_on No.13’751 of 2006. This Court in the said writf”%:petitIon,
by its interim order, dated 29″‘ September, 200:6 the
. petitioner to prosecute her studies without
further interim order was granted’.V_o:n_ J
permitting the petitioner to appee’r._for a”ii.th’eory: e*.r:a’ni’inations’of
this Court in its gprii, 2667 ciarified
that there was p_roirib’itioh} to declare the
petitioner’s resi;_itsA~–:ef~_V_the_VSaiiI.._semesterrtherefore the petitioner
was permittedfto lbapijpeartfor semester examination and
such ortheee ieiseeiueieeiei the V11 semester, if any. This
C ‘”‘t ‘”‘A ‘inaii a it
R _
um L; uy |.e>,’|
.—_dispoeed__i”ofj the”‘w_ri_t.npetition hoiding that the punishment
imDosed.A__’haefl’tvo_ be read and understood as cancellation of
regu’ia’r vvexarnin:ation that she had taken in June, 2006 and not
ythe examienations taken by the petitioner for clearing the arrears
has suppiementary examination. It was held that her appearing
entitled in law to the same.
this Court, the respondent has Tsent.pttteyietter,”tiated,.A19””–.., 4}
November, 2007 calling upon her to__stsbmlt»”uh’er’_vexarn.I’nation
application form at the Coil’eoeu’Vtfo_rdthe subjects and to
take the admission tonthe ‘.Asem_ester after it acquiring the
eligibility. The petltionerfs-.griey§an–ce,.”i’e’:,’,tllat the respondent
in
II I III VII IIIE
st stake admission or readmission to t
=Srl.’iiflf;–.¢a.n’aa’d’ha’rappa, the learned counsel for the
ltioner mil,-um.-«e of the lnt_r!m or ere passed by
prosecutieti vii and VIII semester studies and also appeared
forthe sa:iVd’_v»,–sefonester.. examinations. It Is Srl Ganqadharappa’s
V «V emphatiéippsubrnlsslon that the punitive order is left undisturbed
this Court’s order, dated 1″ October, 2007 passed in writ
petition No.13751 of 2005 only in respect of the cancellation of
6. Sri Arvind, the learned counsel
respondent submits that the petitioner is not the
VII semester, unless she has tlfie””‘ei*igibiilitytit V-‘eiig’i’biiVIty”A’
prescribed is that the candidate 5
subje…s As the pe.itioner has invmore than four subjects,
ruies do not permit ‘ner~- .admissionVi_;’toV”‘the V’ii’semester without
clearing the requisite nurnberof in the previous
semester, namelytthe V, V’
NJ
U’:
‘*5
“£9-
I
5..
2|
CL
in
r’
*-i
E:
III
F
:’il’
fll
a-Ir _
«
2|’ ‘
ill a
mi
‘Cl
‘El
mi
2’.
E-
3!
mi
I:
ni
G!
EL
:i
Ian
91
Hr
:r’
mi
order mt1stac;ttei,iaw passed in writ petition No.13751
of 200$; ” Sri’ ,.,:Cieling:adh’a’rappa submits that there is no
impedimentilinidisphosin-gliof this petition, as the petitioner has
‘”faile”ti{toé.,’per’su,adeV tlieiliivislon Bench to grant any interim order
submits that the matter is of urgency, The
which site’ has appeared. if she has failed in any of the subjects,
. to submit the examination application form for the failed
‘ “-v.f:_subJects and the last date for doing the same is fast
» approaching.
HBH.
8. on careful consideration of the submiss_ion’s”rj’IaiadVe at
the bar, I find that the impugned order, datedA«’:_fi9.”‘_’VATfloirerfibect,
2007 (Annexure-K) is not in conforniitvwith oifletr’,
is entitieci to aii the vbenefitsi””exc;ept-»s.the ‘oe”nefits of the ‘VT
semester examination, steei”tooi_<::i'nf3u'he, 2006.
semester" _ iiieediess to observe that if the
petitioner ha'sp%fa'iied"ef"the subjects of the VIII semester
examination; 'can aiwai/s appear for the same by submitting
1-'f'i"'the Vétaitiinatiton apflplication form and remitting the necessary
' exe.min:.atien" fee;
petition is allowed. No order as to costs.
5?
😐
U}
Q;
~—.
I –
dated 1″ October, zoo? passed gr ti