Karnataka High Court
M V Chakrapani vs Visvesvaraya Technological ... on 18 June, 2019
Author: S.Sujatha
Bench: S.Sujatha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 43701 OF 2018 (EDN - RES)
BETWEEN:
M.V.Chakrapani
S/o N.Venkataiah,
Aged about 46 years,
R/o No.338, AMS Layout,
4th Cross, Vidyarayanapura,
Bengaluru - 560 097.
... Petitioner
(By Sri.A.L.Prem Kumar, Advocate)
AND:
Visvesvaraya Technological University
Jnana Sangama,
Belgaum - 560 018.
By its Registrar.
... Respondent
(By Sri.Santhosh S.Nagarale, Advocate)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the
respondent to give permission to take comprehensive
test and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary
Hearing 'B' Group this day, the Court made the
following:
2
ORDER
The petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondent-University to give him permission for taking comprehensive test in Ph.D Program.
2. The petitioner is claiming to be the student of Ph.D Program on the topic of 'Studies on machinability aspects of austempered ductile from subjected to deep cryogenic treatment' in the department of Mechanical Engineering of Bangalore Institute of Technology.
3. It is submitted that the petitioner has completed the course completion certificate issued by the Registrar of Evaluation relating to four core subjects in theory as per the schedule. The petitioner was qualified to take comprehensive viva however, due to some unavoidable circumstances, could not pursue the same immeditately after the course completion. However, the petitioner submitted the representations dated 29.01.2018 and 14.08.2018 3 requesting the respondent-University to grant permission to appear for comprehensive viva which has not been responded. Hence, this writ petition.
4. Learned counsel Sri.A.L.Prem Kumar appearing for the petitioner referring to Annexure 'G', the permission granted to similarly placed student Devika B.G by the respondent-University vide communication letter dated 10.03.2018 submitted that the university has permitted the said student to re-register for the Ph.D Program and carry forward course work grades and to take up comprehensive viva-voce. The petitioner has requested for similar relief but the same has been denied resulting in discrimination violating Article 14 of the Constitution.
5. Learned counsel Sri.Santhosh S.Nagarale appearing for the respondent-University would submit that the notification dated 20.11.2018 has been issued by the respondent-University whereby research scholars registered during (2007-2011) for 4 Ph.D Program and who have completed the course work and not completed comprehensive viva-voce must apply for re-registration with certain conditions. In view of the said notification, the request of the petitioner cannot be considered. It is also submitted that Ph.D Program Regulations specify that the students who have successfully completed PART-I shall have to take a comprehensive viva-voce within one year of completing PART-I. The petitioner is seeking to take up viva-voce after five years of completing PART-I course which is not permissible.
6. I have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.
7. Though the petitioner has particularly referred to Annexure-G, the permission granted to similarly placed student Devika B.G to proceed with the comprehensive viva-voce and re-registering for the Ph.D Program, the same relief is denied to the 5 petitioner. No reasons are assigned by the respondent-University in discriminating the petitioner from the student similarly situated. It is settled law that similarly circumstanced persons have to be treated equally, contrary to the same would be hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. Respondent-University cannot pick and choose the candidates in granting permission to proceed with re-registering for Ph.D. Program. If such permission is provided to a similarly situated student, adopting the common factor as the criterion and therefore adopting the same yardstick, the petitioner is entitled to similar relief. Denying such benefit to the petitioner would be discriminatory resulting in failure of justice.
8. Hence, in the circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondent- university to re-consider the representation of the petitioner dated 14.08.2018 requesting respondent- university for permission to attend comprehensive 6 viva-voce and an appropriate decision shall be taken keeping in mind the observations made hereinabove.
9. The compliance of this order shall be made in expedite manner in any event, not later than four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE UN