Alakesh Priyam Saikia vs State Of Karnataka on 15 December, 2017

[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Alakesh Priyam Saikia vs State Of Karnataka on 15 December, 2017

Bench: B.V.Nagarathna

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017

                         BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA

           W.P.No.54013 OF 2017 (EDN-RES)

BETWEEN:

Alakesh Priyam Saikia,
S/o. Jagat Saikia Ageol,
Aged about 22 years,
R/at 8th Main, 10th Cross,
Kumaraswamy Layout,
Bangalore - 560 078.                      ... Petitioner

(By Sri: Rajeh K.S., Advocate)

AND:

1.     State of Karnataka,
       Principal Secretary,
       Higher Education Department,
       M.S.Building,
       Bangalore - 560 001.

2.     The Vice-Chancellor,
       Vishveswaraiah Technological
       University, Jnana Sangama,
       Machhe, Belagavi,
       Karnataka - 590 018.

3.     The Registrar,
       Vishveswaraiah Technological
       University, Jnana Sangama,
       Machhe, Belagavi,
       Karnataka - 590 018.

4.     The Principal,
       Dayanandasagar College of Engineering,
                                2

      Shavige Malleshwara Hills,
      Kumaraswamy Layout,
      Bangalore - 560 078.                     ... Respondents

(By Smt: Pramodini Kishan, HCGP for R-1;
    Sri Santosh S. Nagarale, Advocate for R-2 and R-3)

                             *****

      This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct R2 and
R3 to revaluate petitioner's 10ELE15 answer scripts at
Annexure-B again, declare the result at the earliest
thereby allowing him to appear for higher semester
examinations, and etc.,

      This writ petition, coming on for preliminary
hearing, this day, the Court made the following:

                           ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 University on advance notice as well as the learned Government Pleader for respondent No.1. As the prayer is sought as against respondent Nos. 2 and 3, notice to respondent No.4 is dispensed with.

2. Petitioner's grievance is that the respondent University has not revaluated petitioner's answer scripts in 'Basic Electrical Engineering' in accordance with law. 3

3. Learned counsel for the respondent University, who is appearing on advance notice, submits that there is no provision for fresh valuation of the revaluated answer scripts. However, there is a provision for challenge revaluation being sought by the petitioner. Such an opportunity is given to those students who were admitted in the academic year 2013-2014 and even prior to that, as in the instant case.

4. He further submits that if such an application is made, respondent University would consider the same in accordance with law and declare the results accordingly.

5. In the circumstances, petitioner is permitted to apply for challenge revaluation to the College and the respondent College would forward the said representation to the University forthwith. The University to consider the application for challenge revaluation in an expeditious manner having regard to the fact that the petitioner would have to appear for the Examination to be conducted in January 2018 and to 4 declare results of the challenge revaluation to the petitioner. The petitioner to furnish a certified copy of this order to the fourth respondent Institute along with his application for challenge revaluation and also to the University.

6. Writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

Sd/-

JUDGE Cm/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court