Mukti Narayan Rai vs Visvesvaraya Technological … on 24 June, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Mukti Narayan Rai vs Visvesvaraya Technological … on 24 June, 2008
Author: B.S.Patil
V A    Adv)

1 wp206'90.07

Izrmaman coumwnmgwuuarnmmwm
aannmmnma-W-mvwmn, zoos
nnman T
my HONBLE am. Juana: 33.94133;-:«(("  ff   T'  
 r*r rm no     ' ' A
3 :     "      I

1. Mukti Namyan Raj,
S/o Ved Naxayan Raj,
Rtsiding atTi1ath  P),  *  i 

2. Kaxulesh  ~ 4 _ 
s/o  _ '-yaaav,  "
 Pfii-L. P.


 .Sf.a Qhanu 
' «_ Majdr;  years, ~
'  'Rcafiditxgatflaxandih Dharamtala,
 East Singhbhum,
J13:-;rka.z1d-831 O02. .. rmmounm

Jm-ma  & Bclgaum -- SWOI4,
Rcpxesentcd by its Regfitrar.


2 wp20690.07

2. %1 as Chief Superintendent,
AMC E  Colhgc.

18*'! KM. Bannczghatta Row, 
 It"56o (E3. 000  

(nyar1.:.n.put.il._Advror %   V

axumvupzamhu s.am'md Ana. 5» n-1;;  if?   


This pemion is filed under  as 
Constitution of India paaying writ of  tn  

approve the admission of the pctitionersio

and to oorntinm: their further  and 'ac-:.tc.,

This petition cominzj 931 "this Jay;  Court
this writ  Court seeking a
dimction   ' to approve their

admmsw' ' n to_   ' course in the 2*"

    03*¢€°TY and are entitled' £01' bang'

 atim1tte::3'  Eng1ncc' nag' eourscathcypossesa

fmea§5iiithcnp.u.c.a:aasama' non' mrtmywtthaxapusin

J  P.U.C.  n in  subjects is auficiem

x   e-hgifl 1:: to be adm1tmd' to the Bachelor of E  '


3 wp20690.0'7

course. Theymfilwreontendthmhavmgbeendulytflted

tn the course for the amdemic year 2007-08, 

required to take. the first semester examination  

the  ' ' 11, they have      

direction to approve their    V

appear for the first mznester e.xaxmnu:tx)'   n.

3. 1: is not in dispute  the benefit
of reduced e)?Jg11)il'it,'y'e__in ;  in the
they vachfiukzd Tribe of
difiezent $3tatea! a candidate who is

regarded as"Sc:1'|ed11'ledt"-- V Scheduled Tribe in another

State   'tile isorivileges given for Scheduled Caste

    State of Karnataka in the matter of

    courses "as per the relevant  '

   respondent-University fining such

mi _io1.is…t’ti::ll ibr oonsuie’ mm’ 11 befiam this Court in a

t Writ Petmo” n No.83/2008. After oons1dcnng’ ‘ the

oontenfiqns ofthe this Oourthas held. that a

from outside the State is not entitled to clzaixn the

privilege meant {hr the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe


4 WpQ06’%.0’7’


belonged to a %%2e_\vh.ich Wm sp¢5c&d in t& State ofl h3’§

origin as a. scmaxzbd Caste or scwlunad

judgment is remiemd fomwing tbc
Constitution Bench of th; Apex

shckhar Ran vs. been sous_e.s»I€MW 2

cams (1990; 3 see Page 130) Q:

issue of cases and

in this case aigfi 51% r to the em:

‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ .L.I::._ ‘ V’ ._ . Kw»

involved in: ‘ writ petition is also

d1.sm’ 1sse:d’ . ” the mfi writ’ petifimn

this Court has’ ‘ us fir zcfwxi of the fees


-V fees, etc. In the light of the directions

writ pem::o’ ‘ _n, it ‘w ordcmd that the 2″

shall refimd the fees and charges collected

” ” ” ¢51z%P3’1&~”,’a’.n¢§-L” . . . . . .
hum. thezgksuch as mxznssmn fie, ttntxm fine, cxammatnon fee,

Iltiafiéfig etc. within weeks fiom today. The

shall also return to the students the or@naI’ ‘

if any, by _it. Petifioncrs are also held


5 w2o6m7%;;

entitled Er the costs of this litigation from the n:spoxxi§1:t-
College in a sum of Rs.5,000/-
given admission in the stadents without ” _
eligibility and wmmut mfizning fin to 1 _: ”
though such an admission was not 4′ f — T


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