Namratha R vs Bnm Institute Of Techniology on 5 February, 2020

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Namratha R vs Bnm Institute Of Techniology on 5 February, 2020

Bench: P.B. Bajanthri

                            1




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020

                         BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI

           W.P. NO. 50423/2019 (EDN-RES)

BETWEEN:

NAMRATHA. R,
D/O. SRI. RAVI,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
R/AT #167, 4TH MAIN,
KSRTC LAYOUT,
J. P. NAGAR 2ND PHASE,
BENGALURU - 560 078.                         ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. B.S. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.      BNM INSTITUTE OF TECHNIOLOGY
        POST BOX NO.7087, 27TH CROSS,
        12TH MAIN, BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE,
        BENGALURU - 560 070,
        REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL

2.    VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY,
      "JNANASANGAMA",
      BELAGAVI - 590 018,
      KARNATAKA, INDIA,
      REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR
                                     ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANTHOSH .S. NAGARALE ADVOCATE FOR R-2.
R-1 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED.)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE LETTER DATED 21.10.2019 ISSUED BY R-1
PRODUCED AS ANNX-A. AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS
TO PERMIT PETITIONER TO APPEAR FOR EXAMINATION IN
RESPECT OF THE SUBJECT IN WHICH SHE HAS FAILED BY
                              2




ALLOWING HER TO CARRY OVER THE SAME BY ATTENDING
THE 7TH SEMESTER WITHOUT SUFFERING A YEAR BACK
AND ETC.,

     THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-


                         ORDER

Petitioner has questioned the validity of the communication dated 21.10.2019 issued by respondent No.1 - Annexure-A by which petitioner was not permitted to attend classes of VII Semester in view of the fact that petitioner had backlog in the II Semester.

2. Further, petitioner has sought for direction to permit to participate in the process of examination and so also to attend VII Semester without suffering a year back. Undisputed facts are that petitioner had the backlog subjects in the II semester. A student eligibility to VII semester would be determined with reference to 170B 11.0 namely permission to eligibility.

3. Petitioner's grievance is required to be examined with reference to 170B 11.2. Perusal of illustration of 170B 11.2 (c) is when a student seeking eligibility to VII semester should have passed in all the subjects up to IV semester and should not have failed in more than 4 of passing of V and VI semesters considered together.

4. If the aforesaid criteria is taken in to consideration, petitioner is not entitled to admission for the VII Semester since she had the backlog for the VII Semester. Hence, no interference is called for in respect of Annexure-A. However, concerned respondent is hereby directed to permit the petitioner to participate in the ensuing examination in respect of failed subjects in accordance with law.

With the above observations, petition stands disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE BS

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court