High Court Karnataka High Court

M Ramanjaneyulu vs The Registrar National Law School … on 17 April, 2008

Karnataka High Court
M Ramanjaneyulu vs The Registrar National Law School … on 17 April, 2008
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
IN THE HIGH coum' OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE K 

DATED THIS THE 17* DAY on APRIL, 2008  " %' 'A  

BEFORE

THE HOWBLE MR. JUSTICE AsHo1<: B. 1}ij §{:H1GERi *  _ 

wmr PETITION No.1557OVef2O06'----{Edn--Ad)  '    

BETWEEN

M.Ramanjancy'ulu,

S10 P.Maha1i:1gap-pa,

Aged 31 years, Valasala (post), _
Ama1apuram(Manda}},  V 
Madakasira fl'q.), 3 ' ' " = »
Anantapur (Dist1ict)_....    ~
Andhra Pradcsh 51:5  '" ''

____ H   x V  ..    Petitioner
1. The Registrar,  * V   
National  School of 

 I§§§ga;bha#i,«  %%%%% .. .%
'Bgn'ga1pt'e 560 0'23.'

_ 2.  %
I V' _ VRepxe£er1$ed by of

x  & eh a1'x'm_ . -at1;'P.G. Council,

 National law School of India University,
" "--«i."f€ag'a1'bhavi,vvV_. J'

  560 072.

 Respondents

Sri Vivek Hofla for Mfs H0113 8; H0113, Advocate)

1′) The statement of problems identrfied and the _
of the study are the same as yaw’ T’ _&
which you have aiready

Sn’ Krishnadevanzya Uhiversity. A ‘

ii) There is lack of clarity in

andobjedives ofthe’stm:h_;. .

iii) The hypothesis hgmhess.

7. Court has said
the Court she1;Id_ in interfering in
academic matte1s:~» proposal is worthy of
acceptance izot is decided by the academicians.

‘substitute its wisdom for the wisdom of the

not inclined to accede to the xequest

ti2_e pcti€iener’ the impugned letter at Annexum-C be

H fifowevcr, if the petitioner comes out with a new

proposal which meets the standard set by the

fesgsendents and if he has this eligibility in all other respects, the

petitioner’s case for admission to Ph.D. program shall be

REM.

considered by tine respondent University in accoxtiance

Rules. 1 dispose of am petition mscrving the

petitioner to submit fresh research pmposal in 3 ‘

academic . I have no reason to _
‘”‘$?.aH. »

University weiald act vindictivcly anqi r1:_’i’c’,«:,’t””V.the ‘V

application for Ph.D. Program merely tn use it
mseamh proposal twice in fie has
approached this Court. The respéndem; consider
the pcfitioncr’-s ‘oirjectively and
meanzh gfully in .. éndnnorms.

9. of. Vonicr as to costs.

10. If the Inquisition for the
prescribed appficafion fog aémission to Ph.D. Pmgram, the

msfipnflént ghafl the application at the petifioncfs

Sd/~
Judge