Karnataka High Court
Kum V T Rohini vs The Karnataka Examination Authorities on 27 June, 2012
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
Bench: Ashok B. Hinchigeri
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI
WRIT PETITION Nos.20940-20941/2012 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. Kum.V.T.Rohini,
D/o V.D.Thimmappa,
Aged about 18 years,
R/at Lakshminarasimha Swamy Nilaya,
4th Main, Vijayanagar,
Tumkur-572 102.
2. Kum. T.Netravathi,
D/o N.Thippenarasappa,
Aged about 18 years,
R/at Kadire Palli,
Gurrapokonda-515 305,
Madakasira Taluk,
Anantapur District,
Andhra Pradesh. ...Petitioners
(By Sri P.N.Nanja Reddy, Advocate)
AND:
The Karnataka Examination Authorities,
Represented by its Executive Director,
18th Cross, Malleshwaram,
Bangalore-560 012. ... Respondent
(By Sri N.K.Ramesh, Advocate)
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondent to
consider the case of the petitioners to assign the ranking in the
2
CET Examination conducted by the respondent to enable them to
choose the respective professional courses according to their
merit in the ranking and etc.
These writ petitions coming on for preliminary hearing this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioners, who claim to have done their PUC from Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge Technologies, IIIT Campus, Hyderabad (hereinafter called the 'University' for short) are seeking the redressal of their grievances over not assigning the ranks to them in the CET Examination for admission to B.E.Course.
2. Sri P.N.Nanja Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners took admission to six years integrated Course to the University. On their completing 2 years of the Course, they are entitled to get PUC. He submits that the petitioners have completed their PUC securing high Semester Grade Point Average (SGPA) and Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA). He submits that the petitioners have also secured reasonably good marks in the CET.
3. Sri N.K.Ramesh, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the University in question appears to be a non- 3 Government body. He submits that from the records produced, it is hard to decipher what is the status of the said University. The petitioners have not produced any recognition certificate issued by the University Grants Commission (UGC), All India Inter University Board or the Andhra Pradesh State Government. Under these circumstances, it cannot be held that the Course conducted by the said University is equivalent to PUC conducted by the PUC Board of the Karnataka State Government.
4. The second difficulty pointed out by Sri Ramesh is that the petitioners have not produced any equivalence or eligibility certificate. Unless the SGPA and CGPA are converted into marks and the certificate thereon is issued by the concerned/competent body, the respondent cannot act on the statement of marks produced by the petitioners. He also brings to my notice the statement of marks has the suffix 'Temporary' Consolidated Statement. If the awarding of the marks has not attained the finality, then also it will be difficult for the respondent to act on the temporary consolidated statement of academic performance produced by the petitioners.
4
5. The difficulties of the respondent are well-founded. In the absence of any recognition certificate and equivalence/ eligibility certificate, the respondent cannot assign any ranking to the petitioners.
6. It is also the Court's anxiety that if the petitioners have indeed done their course equivalent to PUC and if that examination is conducted by a recognized competent body, the assignment of the ranks cannot be withheld. These petitions are therefore disposed of with the following directions:
i) The petitioners shall produce the documents in support of the recognition/status of the University in question issued by the UGC, Central Government, All India Inter University Board or any other competent body.
ii) The petitioners shall make the prescribed application to the Vishweshwaraiah Technological University for obtaining the equivalence/eligibility certificate forthwith.
iii) If the petitioners produce the documents as directed in i) and ii) supra within 10.7.2012, the respondent 5 is directed to consider assigning the ranks to the petitioners.
7. Sri Ramesh fairly submits on instructions that the respondent would receive the documents mentioned in i) and ii) supra provided the same are submitted on or before 10.7.2012.
8. These petitions are accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE MD