R Umadevi D/O G.C.Kuppuswamy vs The State Of Karnataka Rep By Its ... on 31 July, 2008

[Cites 0, Cited by 3]

Karnataka High Court

R Umadevi D/O G.C.Kuppuswamy vs The State Of Karnataka Rep By Its ... on 31 July, 2008

Bench: N.K. Patil

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

DATED THIS THE 31" DAY OF JULY 2003
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. PATIL

wan PETITION IIo.12433 of zone If. ED§§i?R§§_  T  A

BETWEEN:

R UMADEVI
0:0 <3 :3 KUPPUSWAMY
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
occ; STUDENT  _
RIOWOMENS HOSTEL '   5 _ w I
BASAVESHWRA HOSP1TAL campus  L
R.NO.15. SEDAM ROAD -. ' :
GULBARGA    . 

   ";II..PT-LTITIONER

(av SR|.I-IEIWQINT 5: .r§HAvNnAIIeouQAR, ADVOCATE I

AND :

1 THESTATE C'IF'KARNI|.TAT<'A

RERRESENIED BY' ITSSECRETARY
I - Te DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE,
. ' M.s.auILDING 
 BAIIGALQREIV ., '-

 V 2 "-fH--EoII§EéTor£5T

LMRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION
ANANDA R)-'.0 CIRCLE
BANGALQRE-ﬂ 009

 RESPONDENTS

(ask €hl§M';KUMAR, AGA FOR R1 3. R2) hiki-

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTECLES 226 AND 227 OF T " 'IIIE CONSTITUTION or INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS 2 T0 RELEASQREFUND THE TUFYEON FEES AND OTHER FEES e:I:c., TO THE PETITKDNER FOR THE ACADEMK3 YEAR 2%--2ﬁ & 20064007, THiS WRiT PETIWON COIWNG ON FOR PRELINRNARY HEARENG' "iii 'B' GROUP, mas DAY, THE coum MADE THE FOLLOWiN{3:

0 R E R Petitioner in this petition has sought for a H direoﬁng the respondents to reieasiéIiéfundi««._ti1e:A.ifL;ii;ion:V"VVV fees and other fees for the aoademio--«A;iéors and 2006-2007.

2. Petitioner herein "is, a stodont of Dental Soie-new with an eyzoeiiesnt' aoadcémio'*.:fei:ord and is presentiy éroduation Programme (Dipioma Medical College, (3uibarg;3." ,it oaisev of petitioner that, in the ioonduoted by second respondent and puréuént._§i'ibfn1ent of seat in MR. Medicai Coiiage, 4Go|bar§a,.. oetitioner has paid the tuition fees and material third / ' =:voia}arQes«--..AtoV'ﬁ1e -- rwpondent. Be that as it may, the .__r}$po;ndent has taken a policy decision that, persons _io;'srsuing their PG Progr under Category i are eligible for fut! schoiarehip and exemption from payment of Miecelianeeus expenses as per the Governfne_nt't~.V_ Orders cited vide Annexuree C1 to C6, but {T . Gcvernment has neither sanctioned nor. released"

few to enable the petitioner to get tfntréfund 'cf 770 ﬁaigngy her to the couege for tne:'eeade'mic'yeere':~2005? O6 ,4 2003.07. Petitionesje etudiee in the Medical couege and are insisting upon the ' geetiﬁonter every new and men. tnat;'she is unable to concentrate on "maintain her academic excellence. "Et_"ie case of petitioner that, 1,.-e§nji!ar!y5'«eitL§eted t>ereen.evwho had taken their admission 2004-05 have been sanctioned end ,/,,,_._releeee_'c:itheéfeeeilbut in case of students who have taken

-- jV~-v§\2€-5fA3dfhiS3F.%$itJn for the academic year 2005-06 have been jtesutting in heetiie discrimination and is against ':'_'1e..r§%ghts guaranteed under Articie 21 of the Constitution 0' btlndia. it is the further 91' petitioner that, since she 5 id-umtaoai mutt-am dittpoood of on 8"' July 2005 passed in Writ Petition Nos. 2099022004 and connected matters (Bf. Naveen Kumar P. and others Vs- State of Kamatotfaf ,, others and another decision dated 3"" March ' Petition No.2261/2006 (Dr. Sudho" is, « Director, Directorate of Medical _ Edooétim, and others), what emerges is 1tVhisV" the aforesaid similar nzattersghas diroction to the jurisdictional competent:A...axjtnoiiiiMt?_ ofv..."4:t7esoondent -- Department to pursuance of the reievanf and extend the benefi:fs:.,VV" vnse found eligibie and entitled tot. 1'i:efetofe,i"'ho£é.iVng regard to the facts and the I am of the View that, keeping ogtitioner in abeyanoe and not extending it V i the bénefit Apetiﬁoner is not justiﬁable. it {niche light of the discussion made above, the ﬁled by petitioner is disposed of following the ' passed by this Court ated 8"' July 2005 passed in 6 Writ Petition Nos.20990/2004 and connected matters (Bf. Naveen Kumer P. and others Vs. State of Kamatakeu others and another decision dated 3'" March 2005\:'ino Petition No. 2261/2006 (Dr. Sudhe" at Director, Directorate of Medioei, _ Etiuoetion, and others) and for the reasorie direction to respondents'; "the of petitioner regarding»_fefurid-- and to issue approptiate Offioiais who are vdeaiiiig:::' refund of tuiﬁon fe:e,_a'n4dti'ie petiﬁoner, if she is otherwise fotind eiigiiieiéiianeciientitied to and dispose of the 'veameﬁe ;e§tpeditiooe!§:...ee poseibie, at any rate, within a of from the date of receipt of a copy I of already considered and disposed of. With these observations, the writ petition filed by njqpetitioner is disposed of.

7

6. Learnad Additional Government AdvocateVV.is::.:""»._V permitted to ﬁte memo of appearance on "E _ rwpondents 1 and 2 within three weekgfrgm tcjcigaynji '«.:: ~ u ' .

BMV*

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court