Karnataka High Court
Praveen D vs The Karnataka State Law University on 9 September, 2020
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO.37497 OF 2017 (EDN-EX)
BETWEEN
1. PRAVEEN D
S/O RANGAIAH D
STUDENT OF VIDYODAYA LAW COLLAGE,
TUMKUR
(REGISTRATION NO.40209101051)
KOTHIHALLI, THOTADA MANE
KAMBATHANAHALLI POST
TUMKUR-572118
2. SAJAN V
S/O KVINJANESHWARAN
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
STUDENT OF VIDYODYA LAW COLLAGE,
TUMKUR (REGISTRATION NO.40209101063)
2-366, KURUVAKUDU,
THITTAHALLI, KODUNKULAM
VILAYAN CODE,
KANYAKUMARI MARTHANDAM
TAMIL NADU-629165
3. KAMALA KANNAN M
S/O MANIVANNA G
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
STUDENT OF SLSRF HAVNUR COLLAGE OF LAW
(REGISTRATION NO:41009101025)
70/NA, ANNAMALAI NAGAR
AMBATTUR, GANDHI NAGAR
TIRUVALLUR, TAMIL NADU-600054
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT MOHAN KUMARI B V, ADVOCATE)
2
AND
1. THE KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY
NO.1, NAVANAGAR, HUBALLI-580025
REP BY ITS REGISTRAR
2. VIDYODAYA LAW COLLEGE
TUMKUR-572102
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL
3. SLSRF HAVNUR COLLEGE OF LAW
HOYSALANAGAR
BANGALORE-560016
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT SARITHA KUMARI, ADVOCATE FOR R1
R2 & R3 ARE SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
THE RECORDS CONCERNING AND CONNECTED WITH THE
IMPUGNED CIRCULAR DTD:4.4.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-A
ISSUED BY THE R-1 UNIVERSITY, PERUSE THE SAME AND
DECLARE THE SAID CIRCULAR AS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY
AND UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioners are law students who took up the course in the year 2009-2010. The grievance of the petitioners is that they are not being permitted to take up the examination in some of the subjects which they have not completed. They have 3 approached this Court seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioners to complete their course by appearing in the first and second semester examinations and also the subsequent semester examinations.
2. Learned Counsel for the first respondent- Karnataka State Law University submits that the issue is no more res integra. The matter is covered by several decisions of this Court including the decision in W.P.No.21371/2017 and connected matters which were disposed of on 30.10.2017. The learned Counsel for the first respondent-University would further submit that the dismissal of the writ petitions was further taken up in intra-Court appeal in W.A.No.1151/2018 which was also dismissed on 11.06.2018 by the Division Bench upholding the decision of this Court.
3. As seen from the orders passed in W.P.No.21371/2017 and connected matters, in the case of Saraswathi M. Vs. Karnataka State Law University and Another, this Court has taken note 4 of the Circular dated 4-5/4/2017 issued by the respondent-University to all the affiliated Law Colleges. The Circular clarifies the position regarding the 2009-2010 batch students seeking permission to appear in the subsequent examinations to complete the Course. It was clarified in the said Circular that as per the existing Regulation of 3 year LL.B. course and also as per the resolution of the 59th Syndicate meeting, students of 2009 batch of 3 years LL.B. shall not be permitted to appear for the next ensuing examination (i.e. June/July-2017 exam). It was further clarified that 2010 batch students are permitted to appear for the next ensuing examination (i.e. June/July-2017 exam).
4. Noticing the stipulations of the University, it was held that the petitioners therein who were admitted to the Law courses during the year 2009- 2010 were not entitled to take up the examination, since they were required to complete the LL.B course within the period of six years.
5
5. The learned Counsel for the respondent- University points out to the First Amendment brought to the Karnataka State Law Universities regulations governing three year LL.B. Degree Course In Law, 2011, wherein an amendment was brought to Regulation 14 while adding the third proviso viz., "(C) the Candidates who does not successfully complete their degree within 6 years shall be given an extended period of 2 more consecutive attempts from the date of notification by the University."
6. The learned Counsel would further submit that in the Writ Appeal, the Division Bench has taken note of the Amendment brought to the Regulation and held that at best, the students of the year 2009- 2010 should have completed their Course in the year 2016.
7. Having heard the learned Counsels for the petitioners and the respondent-University, this Court finds that the issue is squarely covered by the decisions referred above.
6
8. The admitted fact being that the petitioners who had enrolled themselves for the three year LL.B Law Course for the year 2009-2010, should have completed the course before June 2016 even after the additional two attempts being given under the amended Regulation 14.
9. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition requires to be dismissed as one without merit. Consequently, the petition is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE JT/-