Sandeep Singh vs The Registrar Of Evaluation on 24 June, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sandeep Singh vs The Registrar Of Evaluation on 24 June, 2008
Author: B.S.Patil
" : f4.';cms'.:itr.:§:io:1"c3fIndia praying to dimct the R1 to 53311:: the hall
 !ickét.Vto petitioner for the examination commcncing on

 VT     petition coming' on for Orders, this day, the Court
"--.. m,a;d¢tl:m-tbkwing:





Sandeep Singh,

S/0 Satyanarayana Singh,

Aged about 18 years,

Resident ofJaya11@9*** Block,   
Twit Bund Road, 

my ulmmuum aj,-A     kk   

1. The  "  
Vishvcshwai:s:ya_fl'echxn;§kpgn2-,ai_-- University,

Bangalore Institute oi'-'!'cchnologz,
K..RgRoa3, v.v.i>1n§gg;,,

an  fin:
 8.93111 and Anti, tor R-1;
It/.a,_s.x.r.§gaf:r;¢y as Ants, Adv Eat my

  'm filed under Articles 226 85 227 of the


"  W as Schedubd Cash: ofdifiemnt sum.

2 wp20697.07


1. The pctifimncr has appxwhcd this Court seeking a
direction to the 1-: respondent ---- University to 

ticket to him for the n m on _

2. It is his case that he bc1o:;gg fa
category and is entitled for being 1′
secured the Iequisitc P.U.C.

ex:am:m.a.’ tion. He 93; P.U.C.

.lgtion for being
eligible of Engineexing course.
He been duly admitted’ to the
course for he was required to take

” Scmcstgcf commencing fmm 31.12.2007.
permitted an take the ‘ ‘ , he
Court seeking a direction to issue the hall

_tiackct”‘i<J the examizuation eommnncing on 31.12.2007.

' « «1¢uis $':1ot in dispum that the petitioner claims the benefit
% in the percentage of marks in the
T examination namely H P.U.C. on the gmund that he

3 wp20697.0? T

4. A qucsfion Whether’ a camifiate who is regarded as
who chims that privileges given fiat Scheduicd and
Scheduled Tribes in the State of Karnataka in

adnnss’ ion to the B.E. courses a per the mlevax-_

flamed by the mspondcnt-University =

L-t–‘b5¢tL3-i{~ZLO’:_.xu¢1,_4¢A.¢fi:’}’ 9 .y _ «_ V A
admissions’ fie}! £31″ consideration ;_a

connected Wxil: Petition No.83/2oos.”‘+._mer

candida” ice from” to chim the
privikge and Schedubd ‘l’ribc
of the the said candid’ ate
bclongeq-L1″.étc_§ in the Star: of his

ongm’ ‘ as or Scheduled Trme. This

«. fig following the t of the
11 of fly Apex Court in Int?! Guuulra

9…’. W m. sea: “mm .-…u.,. ….

3 see page zaapami Action. Comnflttue on

cast; cerumeaee to sdudulcd cam and

Tribes in an mm af an Ant.

T ‘®unun cflndia an Ant. (An: 1994 sew 33053.

4 wp2069’7.07 ”

5. Th1:£acts£nthismscanadthemliefsoughtaresin1i}arto

the one invoizmi in wars Petfiion No.83/zoos. &’i’his writ

mfimnEabo . Hmem,wh%d tmmfl

writ petition this Court has issued certain directions

of the $55 oollmted towards the candid;-1te’s _

hostel charges, examination fees, etc. In

directions issued in the connected i

charges collected frgxn 3:’ am ,F_., ~ tuiiiion fee,
today. The student the original
‘by«’._iV1′;V”V’V:Pct’rtion¢:r is also held
entitled ‘ Sam the respondent.

College in a sum of R:-3e_.5;000/– as 1%spondc:1t–CoBcgc lms

” _t<_$_V't§s;;-_–sijJ;ig:;1_t_wi:thout verifying his efigibility

the matter to the University though such

aa'a,a.m1sm'* ' WW3' flak smaw.



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