Loading...

Mr Vivek Jayaraj S/O T V Jayarajan vs Mangalore University on 14 September, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Mr Vivek Jayaraj S/O T V Jayarajan vs Mangalore University on 14 September, 2009
Author: K.L.Manjunath & B.V.Nagarathna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BHNGALGHE

DATED THIS THE 14" DAY or SEPTEEEEE;i2dQ9i~

PRESENT»-

THE HON'BLE MR.JUsTicE K L.MAHafiHHTH fif

THE HON'BLE MRs{JHST:cs B V NAGAHATHNA

w,A.No.13é2roH.2ob9--.-7

BE TWEEN 2
Sri Vivek.JayarH5"iVV< V'
S/0 T.V.Jay3wfiafi,1hV i,'H"~~

Aged£H24.Yéars,j*'t
C/q"v§Anéesh§" "A
Motisham Euildifigf»_--'
Old Kent Road% ' "T
Opp: Telecdmiflfiuééi
PandesHwar,_] '"
Mfingalroérl

. 'Bfi its power Uf attorney
",HoldertSri.T.V.Jay#rajan,
"_S/ofT;VLDémodarana
_ Age} 63'yéars, retired service,
HP.O,MKa;aparamba,

Kergia State

ca1cut4673o1o

Appellant

i(By Sri.K M.Nataraj, Adv.)

AND:

1. Mangalore University,
Mangala Gangothir

Konaje, %?{'



Mangalore
Rep. by its Registrar
2. Sarosh Institute of iflm
Hotel, Administration;
Pentagon Complex, h
Pumpwell, .7;
Mangalore:S75 002
Rep. By its
Administrato:W_ __ .
"" )5; Respondents

(By Sri,.P.S,RajavGopal;i$r;Counse1 for
M/s. B;s,Raje Gopalgfisfiociates for R1;
Sri. Vijaye Krishna,Bhat; Adv. For R«2)

ViWThis{W.EC is filed B/s 4 of the Karnataka
High Court Ant praying to set aside the order
passed in the Writ Eetition No.6l25/2008 dated
13.4.2009.' "' 'a

'uITHISRwA§PEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

, 'sfiARING THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J, DELIVERED THE
.j2EoLLoWING:

JUDGMENT

‘ This Writ Appeal is directed against the

“*order dt.13.é.2009 passed by the Learned

isingle Judge in Writ Petition No.6125/2008.

2. The Writ Petition was filed. by the

appellant herein seeking a writ of mandamus

3%»

against the respondents to consider this

representations and to condone the shortage of

attendance and to permit him to apfiear foruk

the Practical examination “which_ were dto
commence on 21” April onwards and also final
year examination which were to commence from

4th May 2008

3. fAfter.hser§ice_”o£«’notice on the

resfiondents end after hearing both sides, the
Learned’ siegie,VJedge dismissed the Writ

Petition ‘by; holding that the petitioner’s

“rep;esentation” had been considered and an

“_ereeg’7hea” been passed as per Annexure–R6

H§£.11[4,éoo8, which had not been challenged in

the 3Writ Petition. However, the Learned

x =_Single Judge considered. Regulation~8 of the

concerned Regulations and held that since the
petitioner did not satisfy minimum requirement

of attendance which is 65% in each of the

V’

subjects he was not entitled to any relief in
the said Writ Petition, accordingly Siamissed

the Writ Petition.

4. Being aggrieved by the said order; th

petitioner has filedlllthis appeal

5. We have heatd the learned counsel for

the appellant and the iéarfiég counsel for the

respondent#Qniversit§ as fiell as the College.

t.6.. It “is 7, contended on behalf of the

appellant that on account of illness. The

‘afipellant did not have the minimum attendance

” as h§.&ae suffering from Malaria and that an

A.opportunity should have been given by the

leatned Single Judge to take the examination

x =_hy condoning the shortage of attendance or

otherwise he would have lost an academic year.

7. Per contra, it is submitted on behalf

of ‘the respondent~University’ as well as the
.5:

52,

(3

College, as per Annexure-R6. We fiindf that

despite coming to know of this lfact? “no *

attempt was made by the appellant to make np

the shortage of Vattendance. plUnderVg”thep

circumstances, the Collede did not perfiit the’

appellant to take up the exa$ination’in April-
May 2008. Regulation 8 reads as follows:

“8. Attendance: l
8.1_ ____ _A candidate shall be considered to have
satisfied }the_ reqnirement of attendance for
the year if”he]she attends not less than 75%
of the member of classes actually held up to

‘the end of the year in each of the subjects

“._fiin%i theory and practicals separately).

“_a§w§v¢1)«_ the shortage of attendance of

“student dwhose attendance is 65% and above but

below 75% may be condoned by the University on

payirzent of condonation fee as prescribed by

“athe University by following the rules

prescribed for condonation.

8.2 A candidate who does not satisfy the

requirement of attendance even in one subject

éf

49:,/W

shall not be permitted to take the ryhcle

University examination of that year7andfhe}sh§k

shall not be allowed to Vpr’o’ceed}’ hnextuu

year. Such a candidate shallubegreduired to

repeat the course ixui a subsequent year anda

fulfill the attendance requirements as statedl

in para Bfl above;f

Under Regulation .§~ -8; of §the concerned

Regulation,1f the« aminimum ” requirement of

attendance is_ 75%–5in”each{aoff the subjects.

However, the ,shortage,’Qfa_attendance of any

students, if it is by only 5%, namely, if it

is upto 6§% can he condoned by the University

on Hthe* recommendation of the Principal on

Zfgpayment:

xofhthe_reéuisite fee in terms of the

lsaid Rulesgfl However, in the instant case, it

;has came pn record that the appellant had only

Arl§Q% attendance in certain subjects. Under the

V”»circumstances, there was no question of

V’,condonation of the shortage of attendance

contrary to the rules. Hence the University as

3%

well as the College rightly did not 9ermitihim_

to take the examination which tqofikplece ifiuix

April – May 2008. On the said ieéeohinq the

Learned Single Judge; diémissedwwthe ‘Wtitx

Petition with which we éog¢u;.

9. Hence, the Whit hfipealkheing devoid of

the merit, :’;.s”_’lalé.:o ;1::’Vsmj,é~s§e.d.’ ”

sd/«lg
a ‘O. Q _g _ Judge

Iudqé

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information