High Court Karnataka High Court

Sunila George vs Rajiv Gandhi University on 22 September, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sunila George vs Rajiv Gandhi University on 22 September, 2008
Author: S.Abdul Nazeer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED Ti-IIS THE 22"" DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2008 

BEFORE

2'31; I;f0N'BLE' muUs:rIc1«:s. ABDUL NAZELER', ii  ?;%= C % M  »

 

u«mrPEnr1oNN0.1231zaa9s  %¢    

Between:

1 Sunila George,

D/o George Kutty M311,

Aged about 19 years, 

C/0 Hotel Samarat, V ' 
NearTaxiStand,  ~    
MountAbu~--3075 01. '~ _  '

2 Nidhisimn.     
Aged 8b6fi£V.l9'y¢ars;'- '
.  No.4,"  Hospital,

- X   r/a 5"' Ho-get,
=-.1__'~Io.2354/3. 11'" cm 1* Main,
 zfiszgcx, 1" stage, man Layout,
 x T Kal5za=£magm', Bangalore-560 084.  Petiti%.



~  of; Year B.Sc. Nursing Course
 2007-2008. The college has sent the lifi of
      course in question for the aforesaid
<    not approve the admission of the patitionem on the

  %%g;.nu1;d%¢ha: they do mu have eligibility for admission to me said

And:

Rajiv Gatmi University of Health Sciences,
Kasia, 4"' T Biock, Jayanagar, A ' . A '
Rapid. By its Registrar.   4' '

(By Sri N.K. Ram&, Aadv.)

This Writ Petition is filed  226 8:: 227 19f the
Cowinztion, praym to  the%&%h_i=pu@r!wd 
approval list dated l5.9.20G8'~~vide "'..D', in so: far as

This Writ Petitjm  en;  Hearing 'B'
Group this day,  the fatilldwihgf' = 

The     "  led to Iad1an' Amdemy College of

K\.

N

 



 A_ the  Ui1ivm:s_i_1y.'io pemfi the petitfioners to
  

 ofthe preseni case andinthe interwt of
 _  ja1V$'i§c:re..=A"

oourse,whichiscleatfi'omfl1edoctnnenta1Annexure'D'.
Therefore, patitioners have filed this writ petition seeking 

following reliefs:

"(a) ISSI16 a writ in the nature     X j .
writ/order quashing tine   = % 
Approval List dated 15.9.2003 igjvsg   
memmmm «mm       

(b) Deciare that the  ogéme  to the
B.Sc. Nmsmgeggm  in thé'_--.1r;ciian 

College 79f   the respondent

university; gm _vaii4:£_ a’fi.-;d’.ir£ with the rules
and mga;1auo::s.ko1*%-mg Univarsity and direct

mas; order or direction am this Hon’bie

K

t-

2.LeaxnedC%forflxepeti1ionerswouldooraetxltha£

petiticners have appeared far Senior School

Examination in the yw 2007 and fiey have passed

examination. The petitioners have ‘4

cam as per Atmexurcs ‘B’ and ‘C’ ‘i.§:”fifl”V*@ ‘..A

cemended that they quality’ for to V Q ém ‘.*1-se–…V. was
per the mwnded ordinance It is
wgued that em University their admission

to the aforesaid course;

have fiaited in theory

%%%% andth63’haveobtamed’

Univwsity is jusfified in not approving

IL

*9

forty percmofthetotalmaxksinsciemesubjectsand
mgfi&oftm e ”

5. Theme is no dispute that passing of Cmtrfll u

5 WE] .m(‘CBsE,f0H )3 M

to a in P.U.C. of Karnataka Stae. A A _y 7-T

at Annexums ‘B’ and ‘C’ show that jhavg

the Senior School Certifimte htlie –(2,B,§:.E.

Therefoxe, they satisfy the per the

Ord1nanee’ . more than 45% in
fear msb5ects§,:;an:e1§v, Bioiosy and English
‘I’herefo:’e, they criteria. Though the
fa_ilecVi componem of ‘Physics’ wbjed,

-CBSE e in accordance with the

.7, was examin:n’ g a similar question in the «me

.5: J§s,m{*FI:ENA PHALGUNAN VS. THE RAJIV GAMJHI

V

UNI VEILSITY OF I:IEAL1TH SCIENCES’, BANCMLORE’ — 200.3

(6)K£J’339,whereinithasbeenhe!dasunder:

“There is no dispute that bf’ L.
exammat:’ ‘ens is equivalem to a pass oi”‘iIfie~ , «. ”

Karnataka State. A mom has c_B;’sV.E;.i%jooooo
exammat1’ ‘on is also eligible for a¢ioo§io;Vm»a}.o3;D§s.
Course. an, the «of is
order to become e.ligibIeB.D.S.

Course as per'     the
University    

soouid nova   50% of the

Biology, a’.i!…Vta1mn1og#;he§_._..’L’besides, she should have

al’sc§ passed in safid mbjects also. Since the
fa11oo%io’ the theory paper of ‘Physim’,
is The petitioner has secured 15 masks
aogooysoooooory; 23 in practimls, the sum total or

L w$mi§44’frwlm,andifme matksofboththeflieory
oaéoacioao taken tomm, petitioner is to be

“if as having passed in the ‘physim; subject. The

“ootmooa-sfhouaobodoolarodashoviogpaosoooame

‘ Physics subject also, and the objection of the

In penmt’ them to oomptae the

% §m.¢é492oos

Univmsity holding that the petitiona is not eligiblfzfié.’ A’ ~.

3. The aforesaid decision is directly ) % _ %
this case. ‘I’hcrefore, the
holding that petitioners are not ;e.I.igibi¢: :¢tm

9~ In “W accordingly
anowecs. The V. % Anaexure ‘D’ in
so fin’ as petitioners to t&
aforesaid respondent is directed to
approve we the aforesaid course for

thc reievam Rcguiatiom of the

Sd/-»
Judge