Karnataka High Court
Mr.Anoop George vs The Registrar on 5 April, 2014
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF APRIL 2014
BEFORE
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION Nos. 13520-13544 OF 2014 (EDN-AD)
BETWEEN:
1. Mr. Anoop George,
Son of Mr. V.C. George,
Aged 25 years,
Residing at Vilayil House,
Thumpamon P.O.,
Pallakuzhy,
Pathanamthitta - 689 502.
2. Mr. Chongtham Ramanada Singh,
Son of Mr. Mani Singh,
Aged 22 years,
Residing at Kangmong Langolijam,
Manipur Stage.
3. Ms. Tintu Thomas,
Daughter of Mr. T.K. Thomas,
Aged 27 years,
Residing at Kochumuriyil,
Cheekaanal,
Omalloor P.O,
Kerala State.
2
4. Ms. Shiny George,
Daughter of Mr. A.A. George,
Aged 23 years,
Residing at Ettuvamkil,
Ecthichuvadu,
(PO) Ranny, Pathanamthitta,
Kerala State.
5. Mrs. A. Josaphin,
Daughter of Mr. Ananda Raj,
Aged 29 years,
Residing at Kurnool,
Kaddappa District,
Andhra Pradesh State.
6. Ms. Aswathy A Mathew,
Daughter of Mr. George,
Aged 25 years,
Residing at Mathew Kakkanikuzhiyil
Thelliyoor P.O., Pathanamthitta State- 689 544
7. Ms. Bloomy Varghese,
Daughter of Mr. K.K. Varghese,
Aged 26 years,
Residing at Penile Cottage,
Mattam South,
Thattarambalam,
8. Mrs. Diana Alex,
Daughter of Mr. Alexander P T
Aged 30 years,
Kattayath House , Mudur Post,
Kundapura Taluk, Udupi
Mangalore, Karnatatak State
3
9. Ms. Gurumayam Sarita Devi,
Daughter of Mr. Kullachandra Singh,
Aged 27 years,
Sangolban Khamnam Leirak,
Imphal 795 001
10. Ms. Jency K J,
Daughter of Mr. Joy,
Aged 30 years,
Kavanapparambil, Udayamperoor District
Kerala State.
11. Ms. Jincy P Abraham,
Daughter of Mr.Abraham,
Aged 25 years,
Poonthenkulanjiyil Elanthoor,
Pathanamthitta State 689 643.
12. Ms. Jessy Mathew,
Daughter of Mr. A.J. Mathew,
Aged 44 years,
C.A.M.S.Karumpakara , MTHS,
Channapatta, Ramanagara District.
13. Ms. Jesty Philip,
Daughter of Mr. P.K. Philip
Aged 24 years,
Parambedathumalayil,
Kattachira P.O, Kottayam 686572,
Kerala State.
14. Ms. Liji M M,
Daughter of Mr. Main V
Aged 26 years,
Mettayil, Pariyaram PO,
4
Elanthoor,
Pathanamthitta State - 689 643.
15. Ms. Malva Rani,
Daughter of Mr. V.M. Sasidaran,
Aged 30 years,
Vazhangattur , Koothatukulam,
Ernakulam, Kerala State.
16. Ms. Mariamma Thomas,
Daughter of Ms. Thomas P T,
Aged 25 years,
Pemala , Vandanmedu PO,
Chettukuzhy 685 551,
Kerala State.
17. Ms. Meisanam Thoibi Devi
Daughter of Mr. Kumar Singh,
Aged 25 years,
Nambol Lourembam,
Nambol PO, Bishnupur 795 134.
18. Ms. Noby Varghese
Daughter of Mr. Varghese Sebastin,
Aged 28 years,
Varampath, Kayalpuram,
Pulincunnoo.
Kerala State.
19. Ms. Remya Raveendran,
Daughter of Mr. Raveendra T K,
Aged 27 years,
Tharakkerilveedupayippadu PO,
Alappuzha , Kerala State.
5
20. Ms. Sam Sunitha,
Daughter of MR. P Raju,
38 years, Kurnool, Andra Pradesh.
21. Ms. Seena Samuel,
Daughter of Mr. P P Sumuel,
Aged about 31 years,
Porunnaloor, Kottanad PO,
Kerala State
22. Ms. Shali Thomas,
Daughter of Mr. Thomas E K,
Aged 25 years,
Elangikkal House, Chakkarapadam PO,
Perinjanam, Kerala State.
23. Ms. Surya Surendran,
Daughter of Mr. Surendran M
Aged 24 years,
Madathara Parambil,
Amballoor PO, 682 315
24. Ms. Sruthi V M,
Daughter of Late E N Mohanan,
Aged 21 years,
Valiyaveetil (H), Vaipur PO,
Vaipur, Mallappally, Pathanamthitta,
Kerala - 689 588.
25. Ms. Raji Varghese,
Daughter of Mr. C.S. Varghese,
Aged 23 years,
Plamthottathil Parampil (H),
Manjadi PO. Kattodu, Thiruvalla,
Pathanamthitta 689 105.
6
...PETITIONERS
(By Shri. H.N. Shashidhara, Advocate )
AND:
1. The Registrar,
Rajiv Gandhi University of
Health Sciences,
Karnataka,
4th 'T' Block, Jayanagara,
Bangalore - 560 041.
2. The Principal,
Aditya College of Nursing,
No.12, Kogilu Main Road,
Yelahanka,
Bangalore - 560 064.
3. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by Secretary,
Department of Medical Education,
Vidhana Soudha,
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Veedh,
Bangalore - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. Umashankar, Advocate for Respondent NO.2
Shri. N.K.Ramesh, Advocate for Respondent No.1
Shri. B. Veerappa, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.3)
*****
These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the order issued by
the respondent No.1 vide Annexure-A dated 7.3.2014 and etc;
7
These Writ Petitions coming on for Orders this day, the
court made the following:
ORDER
The learned Counsel for the petitioners is permitted to implead the State Government as respondent no.3. The Cause- title to be amended.
Shri M.N.Umashankar is directed to take notice for respondent no.2.
Shri N.K.Ramesh is directed to take notice for respondent no.1.
Shri B.Veerappa, learned Government Advocate is directed to take notice for respondent no.3.
2. This petition is identical to several petitions, which were allowed by this court and therefore, is heard and disposed of at the stage of Preliminary Hearing.
8
3. The petition seeks to question the denial of approval of admissions to the Post Basic B.Sc Nursing Course (PB B.Sc. (N) course and B.Sc Nursing Course. The background is as follows:
The petitioners are students of the second respondent - College affiliated to the first respondent - University studying PB B.Sc.(N) course and B.Sc Nursing Course for the academic year 2012-13. By a notification dated 23.05.2012 the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences had issued admission calendar of events for the PB B.Sc.(N) course for the academic year 2012-13. The notification mandated that the Principals of colleges should submit online admission statements of the students admitted to their colleges, to the first respondent University between 05.10.2012 and 15.12.2012. Thereafter, the hard copies of admission statements along with relevant documents in original were to be submitted to the first respondent by 18.12.2012, which date was thereafter extended to 31.12.2012. Though most of the colleges adhered to the 9 calendar of events, it transpires that the second respondent - College had not submitted the necessary documents in terms of the notification and the reason assigned did not convince the University. The University was of the opinion that such non- compliance was a gross negation of academic discipline. However, it convened a meeting of the erring institutions, including the second respondent institution, on 14.08.2013 where it was indicated that any discrepancy found in the admission statements would result in the students' admission not being approved. And the University provisionally permitted the students admitted to appear for the examination held from 21.08.2013 onwards. But it was on a condition that the results of the examination of such students would be announced subject to the approval of their admission.
4. It is the case of the University that the institution had failed to comply with the directions and failed to submit the admission statements in time. Though documents were sought 10 to be submitted belatedly, the same was not taken into account since the University had already taken a decision not to approve the admissions of those students whose papers had not been submitted. Though the discrepancies that were noticed by the University were subsequently corrected, the University had not approved the admissions of the students since the documents were not furnished in time. It is on a matter of principle that the University has refused to approve the admissions. It is in this background that the petitioners are before this court.
5. It was certainly well within the discretion of the University to deny the approval of admissions as there is clearly a default on the part of the institutions. This, however, should not result in the career of the students being jeopardized. The need for adherence to the time schedules and to fall in line with measures to maintain discipline imposed by the University cannot be over looked and be permitted to be followed only in the breach. This has to be brought home to the respective institutions. Therefore, the institution ought to be appropriately 11 penalized, as a reminder to prevent the institutions from repeating such indiscretion and laxity on their part.
6. Accordingly, the second respondent institution is liable to pay a penalty of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) for each student, whose admission was pending approval on account of non-submission of the papers by the institutions. On payment of such fee by the Institution, which shall exclusively bear the liability and shall not be passed on to the students by the institution, the first respondent University shall grant approval of admissions, on such payment of penalty, if everything is found to be in order.
With that observation, the petitions stand allowed. Annexure-"A" is quashed.
The first respondent University is directed to approve the admission of the petitioners/students and announce their results immediately, since the next examination is due on 08.04.2014. The petitioners shall also be accommodated to take the 12 supplementary examination if they have failed in any of the subjects, apart from permitting them to take the next year's examination. If there is any default on the part of the institution in the future, the University may take such stringent action, as may be warranted in its discretion and it shall not be open to the institutions thereafter to approach this court in that regard.
Learned Government Advocate Sri B Veerappa is permitted to file his memo of appearance within two weeks.
Sd/-
JUDGE nv