Karnataka High Court
Miss Dharani Reddy vs The Registrar (Evaluation) on 4 June, 2019
Author: S.Sujatha
Bench: S. Sujatha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA
W.P. NO. 46862/2018 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
MISS DHARANI REDDY
D/O SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR G
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
R/AT NO.1/1, 8TH CROSS
9TH MAIN, OPP: GANDHI VIDYA
SHALA, SHESHADRIPURAM
BENGALURU-560 021 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M. LAKSHMIKANTH ARYA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE REGISTRAR (EVALUATION)
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY
PAREEKSHA BHAVAN
GANDHI BHAVAN ROAD
JNANA BHARATHI CAMPUS
BENGALURU-560 056
2. THE PRINCIPAL
SHESHADRIPURAM COLLEGE
OF ARTS, SCIENCE AND COMMERCE
NO.27, NAGAPPA STREET
SHESHADRIPURAM
BENGALURU-560 020 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.T.P. RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY, ADV. FOR R-1;
SRI. T. DYAVAIAH, ADV. FOR R-2)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 23.7.2018 ISSUED
BY THE R-1 CANCELLING THE RESULT OF THE PETITONER
IN SUBJECT BBA-CA 4TH SEM REGISTRATION BEARING
NO.15BTC26028 STUDENT OF SHESHADRIPURAM
COLLEGE, BENGALURU [ANNEXURE-A]
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRILIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has assailed the Notification dated 23.7.2018 issued by the first respondent, canceling the result of the petitioner, the student of respondent No.2 Sheshadripuram College - bearing registration No.15BTC26028 in respect of examination of BBA in CA subject of IV semester,.
2. It is the contention of the petitioner that petitioner is the student of BBA course at 2nd respondent - College. She had cleared I, II, III, V and VI Semester examinations with First Class Distinction and is planning to join Post Graduation Course. It is the grievance of the petitioner that she has received an intimation from the second respondent that her result in respect of subject CA (Cost Accounting) was held-up by the first respondent - 3 University, on the allegation of mal-practice committed by the petitioner while writing 4th semester examination of 'Cost Accounting Paper', during May, 2017, as it was found that two pages were missing from the answer sheet booklet of the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that it is apparent from the records that the petitioner is a bright student and the allegation made by the respondent No.1 - University about missing of two pages in the answer script booklet is wholly without any basis. Even in the inquiry said to have been conducted by the respondent - Inquiry Committee of the University, no positive material is found to prove the allegation of mal- practice made against the petitioner for with-holding the results of BBA in CA, and therefore, the said alleged complaint of mal-practice is unjustifiable and calls for interference by this court.
4. Sri T.P. Rajendra Kumar Sungay, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 - University submitted that the so called action initiated by the respondent No.1 in with-holding the result of the petitioner relating to the 4 subject BBA in CA is based on the Inquiry report of the committee.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 - Institution supports the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and denies mal -practice said to have been committed by the petitioner as alleged.
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perusing the materials on record, it is ex-facie apparent that the allegation of mal- practice inasmuch as tearing of the answer sheets by the petitioner is said to have been found by the valuer at the time of valuation. There is no positive material elicited either from the petitioner or from the invigilator or by the institution to establish the allegation of mal-practice made against the petitioner. It is based on surmises and conjunctures that the petitioner was involved in mal- practice, the results of the BBA in CA has been with-held by the University, without there being any effective report to prove the allegations against the petitioner. In the circumstances, penal action initiated by the respondent No.1 cannot be approved and accordingly, the Notification 5 at Annexure-A as regards the petitioner herein, in with- holding the results of the BBA IV Semester in CA (Cost Accounting) is hereby set aside.
With the aforesaid observations, the Writ Petition stands allowed. The respondent No.1 University is directed to declare the results of the petitioner in the IV semester BBA in CA, paper forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE PL*