High Court Karnataka High Court

Tulika Thakuria vs The Registrar Of Evaluation on 24 June, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Tulika Thakuria vs The Registrar Of Evaluation on 24 June, 2008
Author: B.S.Patil
   for

"  ofindia praying to direct the R1 to issue the: hall
 .__ti:si-:r:Vt*. to the pctitiontzx' ibr the cxam;ma' tion m  on
_ 3_1.*3._2;2007.

      This petition coming on fin' Qniem, this day, thc Court
A "made the fomwing:

1 wp20698.07

:u11i:mmiooumorxAn1IA'ruuxrnAxaAnm
mm» rms 'rim 34" mm? or mm, 2908 
nsmm   f __  .
um Homnm am. Jus-rm: n.s.pA1'!.L-'- if "7 'L --' 'V' '
wart on 0 3 %  V  "
nrrwnms: '   
Tulika Thnkuria,
D/0 Tartmchandra Thakuria,
Aged about 19 years,
Resident of C.S.I. Compound,

Mission Road,

No.137,LalbaghRoad,  _ ._   

1.

‘l’hc,EEagist mr dihfi’-vafimtion,’
Visahvcshimziizayfia University,
Ba1Iga1ore’h_1s’titutc ‘c-3f’I’ochnolog3,r,
K;’R.Ra-ad, V.V..?uram,

~Bi’i.jBaia1’_a§t’afihn 3.1-um and Ants, for n-1;
IEl_s.8.V£»Ihi§3i’thy 8 Ants, Adv to: R2)

Thispeaaon is filed under Articles 225 a; 227 ofthc

2 wp20698.07

1. The petitioner has approached this Court

direction to the 1″ mspondent — University to ‘

ticket to her 501’ the exzaminatnb n eomme._nt’mg,’__4

2. it is her case that she

category and is entiflod for being’ V» ittod to of ” L»

Engineering course as she having
secured the requisite the 11 P.U.C.

cxamm lion.    11 P.U.(3.
e.xam.tn' ration    .§§mciem fbr being

cligibh of Engmccn:ng’ ‘ course.
She “been duly mmzttafl to the

course fizrr V she was mquufi to

first n m {mm

petitioner was not permitted to take the

ex approached this Court seck1ng’ a

the hall ticket’ to her for the c-.xam1na’ tion

” Lon 31. 12.2007.

.3′, not in dispute _that_t;:¢_pqt;i11Toncr chime: the bcncfit

T eligibility in the percentage of marks in the

&

3 wp20698.07

qualifying examination namely [1 P.U.C. on the gmund that she

helongs to Schadukxi Caste of éifiemnt State.

4. A question g who is ~

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled annth.V”gr ” A

who claim’ s the pr1v1k:gcs’ ‘ given’ _?

Scheduled ‘1’riI)e in the State ¢f__’I<§ama._ in as *

mlmission to the B.E. ooqrses Itfiiuiafions
framed by the ma V such
N44 e/Lh'HeJ+04MJ%£o
admissions /Lfcli 3»: Court in a
connected considering the
respective Conn has held that a
candid' ate_ mt entitled to chim the
privilege Cast: and Sciuadulad Tribe
of the gm: because the said candidate

to apasmfl um specified in the State of his

W} " j!..u.?aud came or Scheduled Tribe. This

" fioflowing the judgment of thc

Bench of the Apex court in Harri cu%

vs. Dogs, Sufi: e.s__.nwmaz Collage and

of can cmmeue ta sawmxoa cause «me

than the t~
' . W . I i" I ." I hfir ]. 3].!

the naatacr to the Univerdty thmgh such

4 wp20698.07

Sehadulodfifiamflicfibauofflahauahtumdmu.

Vs. (mien o]'Iudia&Anr. ¢4m1994 scwsaog.

5. The moss in this case and the mast” sought an .
the am: involved in Writ Petition Q ”
petifion ‘m also Hawcvcr, :t§¢’%i&i’
writ petition this Court has VA
ofthc flees collected towards the :e*s_w

host:-:1 charges, L of the
din:c°mn’ s issusm in the oonnt-r’mu :_j1+, 73a mama

today. to the student tmoxiginal
oertnficalr’ if 35% it. Pctaaioner 55 also held

Rs.5,000]- ashrespoment-Cdlcgc has

sdf…

Judge