Kum Soumya H D/O Honnagangaiah vs Visveswaraiah Technological ... on 19 March, 2008

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Kum Soumya H D/O Honnagangaiah vs Visveswaraiah Technological ... on 19 March, 2008

Bench: Ashok B.Hinchigeri

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BAN§AI;dRfEt<%
DATED THIS THE 19*" DAY or MARCHQQOQQ A'  = 
BEFORE       t x  

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A;sHc:1(B. 

Writ Paﬂflnn Nn_9'na;ﬁ2_ nf ahnj 'rt§A:s,-i$&1'  

BETWEEN

Kurn. Soumya H, V V
DIG Hannagangaiam.   
Aged about 24 y_aas*§,'_v

Residiﬁq at ivio._1:;:,  , ., p 

6"' Cross. 4"' ii Maﬁanf    
Chandana Extension', ' 
Sunkadakatte,     
Banga|otfe--560AG£¥V1._é  -. 

 %  _ PETIHONER
*   tIBy'9rI"A}v--. ,§:;mgadharappa, Advocate]

_ AND__{' "

, 

_  viétfé;-sI4§ara!eh Technolwical J:~..-.'ers!t',',
" » Be:gaurfr:.--590 014,

* Kavrrataixad' State,

'' "*VRepres'e~ntéd by Its Registrar (Evaluation).

V --V 2. "4"'E)oiaV.B¢5:-itzo Institute of Technology,

  f5angaiore--560 074.

Kurﬁbaigodu,

 ~  Mysore Road,
 RESPONDENTS

[By Sr! Arvlnd Kulkarnl, Advocate for Sr! Basava Prabhu S. Patll, Advocate for R1, R2 sewed] This writ petition is ﬁled under Articles 226 and for the constitution of Indie preying to eeesh the !ette?"'dt--t.1'3,i 1,-,2t1.,t.1? vide Annexure-K and etc. This petition coming on for v.hearl.ng t_hi's.4.'d,ay,.,' Court made the foilowinﬁ: A_ p A. The petitioner's gdevancel'l'is',v:thet the '._re'spoun;dent's order, dated 19"' November, not keeping with the order, dated ,1" Octoher,--..2.dO1i?, this Court in writ ".11-1-I-im-. Lin 'l':!"'i.V,E'I","n.4-""'!l'Il"\E i A |JI=u|.IuII IVLI-J.JI.'.JJ.:.*,'.Il 'V.1.t.3lv'\J'J. :_ '_ ._

2., .... the...cese are that the respondent found the '«petition'er:'g,ti"iiti["~~of 'certain examination malpractice end pa-.sed the punitive erder, dated 23"' September, 2095 :n....- ..-a_ _..a. ._-..n.n-.. -1 n.L... .....z-_ n.. ._ _n_.___.:_.__| U'-'\i1fi&.'XUfI::"H} IHE YEFEVGHE POITIOH OI' HIE OTCIET I5 Xllfa EEO herel,hbelow~;,f~~. __ .__"'V%"Deni'ai1V.oii beneﬁt of performance of the ﬁxaminations "- conducted during June 2006.

_ Rejection of semester results, Readmisslon, change of V " «..ce!.ie.ge and change of seer;-e e.n.=.- not Mnf nnrmifhnzi In falrn arlmiccinn In ﬂu: hinhar gal-nae!-nr I'VE FIVHIUIIIUIN-'I-' U', IFITIEI 'IHIFFIUJ-JIIIII I? "I'm! l'I""'%l' 3\i""Ef;'¥"

till the redeeming of punishments imposed."

3. This order was challenged by the petitioner in writ FiE'H. petiti_on No.13'751 of 2006. This Court in the said writf"%:petitIon, by its interim order, dated 29"' September, 200:6 the . petitioner to prosecute her studies without further interim order was granted'.V_o:n_ J permitting the petitioner to appee'r._for a"ii.th'eory: e*.r:a'ni'inations'of this Court in its gprii, 2667 ciariﬁed that there was p_roirib'itioh} to declare the petitioner's resi;_itsA~--:ef~_V_the_VSaiiI.._semesterrtherefore the petitioner was permittedfto lbapijpeartfor semester examination and such ortheee ieiseeiueieeiei the V11 semester, if any. This C '"'t '"'A 'inaii a it R _ um L; uy |.e>,'| .---_dispoeed__i"ofj the"'w_ri_t.npetition hoiding that the punishment imDosed.A__'haeﬂ'tvo_ be read and understood as cancellation of regu'ia'r vvexarnin:ation that she had taken in June, 2006 and not ythe examienations taken by the petitioner for clearing the arrears has suppiementary examination. It was held that her appearing entitled in law to the same.

this Court, the respondent has Tsent.pttteyietter,''tiated,.A19''''--.., 4} November, 2007 calling upon her to__stsbmlt»"uh'er'_vexarn.I'nation application form at the Coil'eoeu'Vtfo_rdthe subjects and to take the admission tonthe '.Asem_ester after it acquiring the eligibility. The petltionerfs-.griey§an--ce,."i'e':,',tllat the respondent in II I III VII IIIE st stake admission or readmission to t =Srl.'iiﬂf;--.¢a.n'aa'd'ha'rappa, the learned counsel for the ltioner mil,-um.-«e of the lnt_r!m or ere passed by prosecutieti vii and VIII semester studies and also appeared forthe sa:iVd'_v»,--sefonester.. examinations. It Is Srl Ganqadharappa's V «V emphatiéippsubrnlsslon that the punitive order is left undisturbed this Court's order, dated 1" October, 2007 passed in writ petition No.13751 of 2005 only in respect of the cancellation of

6. Sri Arvind, the learned counsel respondent submits that the petitioner is not the VII semester, unless she has tlfie""'ei*igibiilitytit V-'eiig'i'biiVIty"A' prescribed is that the candidate 5 subje...s As the pe.itioner has invmore than four subjects, ruies do not permit 'ner~- .admissionVi_;'toV"'the V'ii'semester without clearing the requisite nurnberof in the previous semester, namelytthe V, V' NJ U':

'*5 "£9- I

5..

2| CL in r' *-i E:

III F :'il' ﬂl a-Ir _ «

2|' ' ill a mi 'Cl 'El mi 2'.

E-

3! mi I:

ni G! EL :i Ian 91 Hr :r' mi order mt1stac;ttei,iaw passed in writ petition No.13751 of 200$; " Sri' ,.,:Cieling:adh'a'rappa submits that there is no impedimentilinidisphosin-gliof this petition, as the petitioner has '"faile"ti{toé.,'per'su,adeV tlieiliivislon Bench to grant any interim order submits that the matter is of urgency, The which site' has appeared. if she has failed in any of the subjects, . to submit the examination application form for the failed ' "-v.f:_subJects and the last date for doing the same is fast » approaching.

HBH.

8. on careful consideration of the submiss_ion's"rj'IaiadVe at the bar, I find that the impugned order, datedA«':_fi9."'_'VATﬂoirerﬁbect, 2007 (Annexure-K) is not in conforniitvwith oiﬂetr', is entitieci to aii the vbeneﬁtsi""exc;ept-»s.the 'oe"neﬁts of the 'VT semester examination, steei"tooi_<::i'nf3u'he, 2006.

semester" _ iiieediess to observe that if the petitioner ha'sp%fa'iied"ef"the subjects of the VIII semester examination; 'can aiwai/s appear for the same by submitting 1-'f'i"'the Vétaitiinatiton apﬂplication form and remitting the necessary ' exe.min:.atien" fee;

petition is allowed. No order as to costs. 5?

:| U} Q;

~---.

I -

dated 1" October, zoo? passed gr ti

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court