Kumar Arivoli. A. vs State Of Karnataka on 26 March, 2008

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Kumar Arivoli. A. vs State Of Karnataka on 26 March, 2008

Bench: Ashok B.Hinchigeri

I AND

J IN THE HIGH coum' on KARNATAKA AT BANC;'gA_i:.V£:V) l$!§3~'A. -. x

DATED THIS THE-261'" DAY 01:'  '     ' L

THE Hon-BLE MR. .1us*r1c1:«:_ As1;;oi§: i3; HiNcHr%GE1§%§AAA/[fai

warp PET!'I'_0N Ne: 1'.73sA3::2»A.,£2Lk;:'z% (EDBEeAL:1"  

BETWEEN

Kumar Arivoli A,

Age 22 years, f ' 

810 Sri K. Anna      .  
Studying in 1"..3*~':'4er. 131-_E?i-;   A
In !~'!a.___mnn '1':-.-5-..r.:1-1!.-_'-rfs '_!7rn.ii1i:r-.g'--!;1s*.ii1,.!£¢,"'.; 
No. 134,  ,  " " ' 1

'31-no|cua|u'Ip\-unn.'  I-'Irv 'l',\;7Q"I
 mul§- VJ \J°EV.:'¢

  _ A    A PE'I'I'I'IONER
"  (By M};  Aésociatcs, Advocate) %

  stamm 

'  Repmsantgd by its Secretax-_v',=
..

= A M8 Building,' ' E*,a:*.gs.La_r-A550 (391.

T Thé " I District 'Training I-nstitutc, _ x _BéAnga1ore Urban District, " - Rajarajeawarinagar, Banga1ore--560 098.

I ' ., The Director.

r\:n-Inn-:1\js f|_'a-Iain-pa. on In Dgnnnuqlﬁ I-ll-§'-AIIKI5 .l.-ﬂ»l.l..l.I..vﬂ.l.-l\Il.l. '"

'Training Centre, 100 Feet Ring Roati, Hoskeiehalli, Bangalore.

4. The Principal, ' Raman L'. '-'*'..--..." . C.¢-Ila"

No.134, vishwabharamthi Campinas}, T A '; Magadi 'Road, i-'aen1nakshipa':3rﬁ_, ' Banga1om--56O 079. ' V _ V _ ,_ _, ~ RESPONDENTS (By Sri B. Manohar, Am gar Mvocate) This Writ Petition is @226 and 227 of the Constitution of India' praying to arnoxder of Certiorari. the zejwtion of of the _ﬁ.r.a'tv D,Ed.g Gouge vide Annexure-A dt, Nit issated 'by_V!3'2-~.as =i11ega1__and arbitrary and etc. 'I'his_ .wﬁt"'vPeﬂt5Qn on" for prelimjnaxy heating 'B' group day, n:~'a(iethe foiiawing:

'l']_1e_V brief facts.".'~of"v_t1V1e"n case an: that the petitioner was 'V at the '43' respondent College for the '..Q{)'T(V)t'i~.g-07 in the management quota. His admission to was not approved by the 2"' respondent, as the not have the prescribed entry qualiﬁcation. The 2'"

2 u ' ll-¢UI£~J'I-II-I.'-INTI-I-II. i 'Gil I-I-lnpnlniulﬂu I-Q1-I II--loo but-OI-I I -no-ruurop ciao an-15;-' dag-Ed n-I1 turn-inn nurn t P 411! n-nnn d _ 'ﬁzqﬁest for approval of the ""t'i'|i:'.'r"'i:":f'S adﬁsaion is uu"""uﬁi"m" in 'V ' _ 1-' I

2. n B. ivianohar. the learned Additional Ciovomincnt Advocate submits that as per Rules 3 of the Candidates for admission to Diploma » _ Rules. 2002 only such of the canditiatoiea, w;1_"1o.. in . PUC an: 'eligible for admision to is extracted hcreinbelow: _ _ _ * 3. be eligible for admission she is a vi-.Indi§I. Iidiciicc passed the Cowse or Vsiuciieti any two of Maidyalain. Urdu, Marathi SSLC or in PUG or 129' i A Provided that a Commerce candidate shall ,sf_t'uciied in PUG any two of the eieciive Hiswry, %7mmi'm Gﬁogwhgi V_z2ciiiici:it Soc:'oIogy_. Kannada, Education as V1 Education 2 he/she has siudied at High " School level:

Pmvided further that the minimum marks for the purpose of quaiiﬁoation shaii be- 5 Foﬁysﬁve per writ in €i"i.e* case of ca"u"u'.i"i'da%s- belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled F113}! 1 \.

Tribe. Category I of otlier Backward Classéél speciﬁed in ihe relevant orders issuoﬁ.

 C-.r.nJe.n.n..m.en!     V 

gohysioally     _  .

(ii) Fiﬂyperfoent in case of _ , He 1 -uvua-cum passed « .

Course/DipIonmi~..:M,oar Job Course shall be eﬁgibieifor to D.Ed.


Cour's.o:_::'  'A
     shall be
fog  course in particular
  he/she has studied in
'-that    or its equivalent-

.n__ 1.1!

eiamfrmﬁofri orshzié smciie nai language as jirsi case, as is -evident from the statement of marltﬂif the petitioner has only done his foundation of ﬁistont Education from Univoigity s_at,=c_.=u_I.'I'_ug :i"Aﬂ 1"\l-I1" {Inc nw\Ir{nn in an. fl?-I-In H"

" I-run 0.5.: 1.I'J\4'Vl\-II-I UL! Iﬂlulid 5%.

niiln Q :

I I-lull-A 5.!' VIVLIJI.-Jul I. "f""'f 'F?' r -.I\I-III!

--. §.¢.......'.'.,4...l 1._.........: .1': - 4- _._ _ ____.3.!_'I_ _.....I..._ L _ _ 4 A n __.'I I-|,__ I-I,._!,, , 0; UVC, I1 ' (Ill. II}, - 110 I133 PESSCQ l"IC"U,llIVCI'SlI'.y 'V ' " Htional Education Course] Diploma or any other Job "Oriented ucourse, shall not be eligible for admission to D.Ed. Course. £151'! rm", Further in the Foundation Course of Distant "the candidate has secured only 46%. On both the held that the petitioner is not entitled ﬁo];et« T T Course. Therefore the 2"' respondent he 1 tnrni 0 rj_;I_|_rn

4. There has been no petition.

5. The :0i"!:iﬁ;',198i5 by the Government 'l'aJ:nil Nadu of the petitioner in any way. The order holding that the two years' Foundational'-. * by the Annamalai University is _conside:f§eé'i to be eqiiivaleiut to Higher Secondary (+2) Course of i_L_;. .';._ ,4. 3.- iv Tamil Nada'; petitioner cannot contend with any rate of success " the years' Foundational Course be treated as equivalent to V' This is all the more so. when the proviso to

(ii) of Rule 3 of the said Rules unequivocally states that no person, who has passed Pie-University Vocational Education 38%! _o._ i' '-the app1v:sv.sl"». V "f,ie'i;itione1's Course] Diploma or any other Job Oriented nbc eligible for admission to DaEd. Course.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court