Karnataka High Court
Deepika Peddapalli vs The Registrar on 3 April, 2014
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION Nos.13702-13709 OF 2014 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. DEEPIKA PEDDAPALLI
D/O RAJENDRA PRASAD,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
R/AT H.NO.1-22, SHAMIRPETPOST,
JAGOON (M), WARANGAL DIST.
ANDHRA PRADESH 506167
2. HARITHYA Y
D/O Y. SUBRAMANYAM,
AGED ABOUT 24 YAERS,
R/AT D-TYPE 274, VINAYAKNAGAR,
TIRUPATI, CHITTOR,
ANDRA PRADESH
3. INGLE SATISH PHILIP RAO
S/O PHILIP RAO RAJANADA INGLE,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT # 3, MAMTASARDARSHRADHA NAGAR,
AKOLA, MAHARASTRA
4. KAVITHA B D/O KISTAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
H.NO.-1-6, 117, GRINIGADDA,
JANGAON, WARANGAL,
ANDRA PRADESH 506167
5. RANAVARE CHHAYA SUBHASH
D/O SUBHASH
-2-
AGE: 23 YEARS,
R/AT H.NO-12, NETAJI ROAD,
MUMBAI, MAHARASTRA
6. SHINDE PENINA PAULAS
W/O PAULAS,
AGE: 29 YEARS,
R/AT H.NO.24/1, SURYA APARTMENTS,
NAVI MUMBAI,
MAHARASTRA
7. SIMMI SHYLAJA E
D/O SAINULABDEEN KUNJU,
AGE: 23 YEARS,
R/AT KAVLAYHILPUTHENVEEDU,
NORTH NYNAGAPALLY POST,
KOLLAM, KERALA
8. YEBILLI KALAVATHI
D/O YEBILLINARASIMHARAO,
AGE: 25 YEARS,
R/AT LINGAPURAM (VI) CHARLA (M)
ANDHRA PRADESH ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SHASHIDHARA H N, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE REGISTRAR
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVESITY,
OF HEALTH SCIENCES,
KARNATAKA, 4TH "T" BLOCK,
JAYANAGARA,
BANGALORE 560041
2. THE PRINCIPAL
PATEL COLLEGE OF NURSING,
B.M ROAD,
RAMANAGARAM 571511
-3-
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY THE SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI N K RAMESH, ADV. FOR R1
SRI B VEERAPPA, AGA. FOR R3)
*****
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANN-A, DATED 7.3.2014
& DIRECT THE R-1 TO DECLARE THE RESULTS OF THE
PETITIONERS OF THE I YEAR EXAMINATION OF PBBSC
NURSING COURSES HELD IN THE MONTH OF AUGUST 2013.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
These petitions seek to question the denial of approval of admissions to the PB BSc (N) course. The background is as follows:
The petitioners are students of the second respondent college studying in PB BSc(Nursing) course for the academic year 2012-13. By a notification dated 23.05.2012 the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health -4- Sciences had issued admission calendar of events for the PB BSC(N) course for the academic year 2012-13.
The notification mandated that the Principals of colleges should submit online admission statement 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 colleges adhered to the 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 -5- 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 the admission.
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 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 -6- noticed by the University, having been 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.
It was certainly well within the discretion of the University to deny the approval of admission 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 -7- appropriately penalized, as a reminder to prevent the institutions from repeating such indiscretion and laxity on their part. Accordingly, the second respondent institution is liable to pay a penalty of `.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) for every student whose admission was pending approval on account of non-submission of the papers by the institutions. On payment of such fee, which shall not be passed on to the students by the institution, which shall exclusively bear the liability. The first respondent University shall grant approval of admissions on such payment of penalty if everything is found to be in order. With this observation the petitions stand allowed.
The first respondent University is directed to approve the admission of the petitioners/students and announce the result immediately since the next examination is due on 08.04.2014 and hence the -8- petitioners shall also be accommodated to take the supplementary examination if they have failed in any subject apart from 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 ykl ct -bms