Pradnya S Talekar D/O Sri. S.B. Talekar vs The National Law School Of Inida on 31 May, 2010

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Pradnya S Talekar D/O Sri. S.B. Talekar vs The National Law School Of Inida on 31 May, 2010

Bench: Mohan Shantanagoudar

-AND ;  

INTHEPﬁGHCOURTOFKARNATAKAATBANGALORES

DATED THIS THE 31*" DAY OF MAY, 2010 f 'f ~

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN SH}\'I'¢TA.i}IA(V3aC}VltJD/VX:R--'.T; 

WRIT PETITION NO. '1083V1_/2008(EDI§I§RESI';_T - . . " 

BETWEEN :
PRADNYA SIFALEKAR

MINOR, AGE 17 YEARS

D/O Sri S.B.TALEKAR .. 
REP.BY HER GUARDIAN   . 
AGED ABOUT 54 YEAR'S '_  
R/O No.2 VEDANTHA3§I'AGAR_  

AURANGA,BA.Dg;'.4I:§"3I:'@Q5_  TR 
MAHARASHTRA;?.j_,    M   ._pETITIONER

(By M/S RA NGANA'rHA3s..I'OI.S' 
AsSOcITES,ADVS.,) , ' " 

THE VNATIONALVLAW SCHOOL OF INDIA

UNEVEIRSKFF-Y"'--I.TREPBY ITS

   VICE' CHANCEQGR
', 'HAGARABHAVT
 _IsA_NGALORE§_. M 560 042.

 THE CONVENOR
~ ._ - "C0:/IMOAI LAW ADMISSION TEST
 S NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL OF INDIA
V ' jj'i5NI\.z*'ERsITY, NAGARBHAVI,
 _ BANGALORE W 560 242.



she gave first preference to NLSIU ~« Bangalore, second preference

to NALSAR -~ Hyderbacl, third preference to NLU -- .lOdhpltIH,',,

preference to NUJS we Kolkata, 5"' preference to GNLU"'<ie;:i Gijrjaratii  H

etc. Based on the ranking the petitioner gotiiand' the'-«Aprefe.re1i:ceVof" 

her, she was allotted seat at NLU, Joclhpur ee4'the"third preference  if

the petitioner in as much as the seats atii'~iiI;SIU, 
NALSAR, Hyderabad were   ranl<.VTherea.fter
the petitioner seems to have  .i.j'aisfeat at NUJS,
Kolkata instead of   the petitioner

wanted transfer  he;1_4'4iadrraissi;on'*fion1"~Jo'dhpur' to Kofkata. The said

request is not acceede'd:"'to.'l .,Petiti'oner"'s father sought for certain

information fro%n_4Pri,b1ie_ Inforniation Officer and the Convener,

V'.CQrnIﬁQf1'~§":LaW. Adrnis's'i'on___HTests, National Law Schools of india

University  question papers of CLAT--20()8, key answers

  supplicdiby the'.e§;an1ining body etc. The said information was not

 H 'supplied  the; I3i3ib1ic Information Officer.

A  : lnlwiew of the same this writ petition is filed praying for

 ____t'r'a'nsf'er of the petitioner from NLU Jodhpur to NUJS, Kolkata. She

 has prayed for a direction to the third respondent to take

F'/' appropriate action under the provisions of Right to Information Act and the Rules framed thereunder.

2. Heard the learned Advocate for th€,'.i}5i€ti'I'i0l16'l',

3. Insofar as the prayer relating toiactiiien provisions of Right to lnforrnation'il¢i:c~t.t.. concierned,' Holla, learned advocate appealing 2 submits that the requisite ini°o1'rriation._isViéilreayisé'V'/ifurnished by the respondent No. E to .the:petition'er;:"I'h:e recorded. Hence, the isiaid'--p'rayeir'd:oeysi Iiotiilsurvrive any more.

4. Fronzyythey inicepti-on of-respondent No. 1 University in the year i987'up_to the 2007, respondent No.1 itself had ._been.co't1ducti'ngi'the entrance test for admission. However, with the iiN~at:i'onal Law schools in Hyderabad, Bhopal, Kolkata-,~._Jod_§Ip;1rQRaipur and Gandhinagar which are run on similar it to respondent No. 1 University and which also admit students 'eased 'on9an entrance test, there were conflicts with regard to the I/\ scheduling and the dates of entrance tests which often clashed. Thus, after various deliberations with the intervention of Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India and University Grants Commission of India and Vice--Chance11or's'~.i:'Qfl*--_A seven law schools including the respondent No. -Tfa= Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or1.:23.»1.1,2007"c¢oniinittin4g;. themselves to hold a Common Entrance "fest.:1.Chanal{3?a"Nnatiorial Law University (Patna), Dr. Ram Manohar 1_iohia'Npation"al4'V'L'aw University, Patiala were also permitted"'to.'tztilis»e_ the test-scolres of Common Entrance Test. Pursuant the--.l5§%1C)U,Al3etig',Ieen. the National Law Schools, C-ornmon ._,A'd-rnissioii Test was held for the year 2008 and results..were 17.05.2008. As aforementioned _.--the petitii--)neriA'was as"s'i.gne_d__l50'h rank. The petitioner was also lalloiteda. seatat Jodhpur and her name was shown at Sl.No. 3 .. in thesaiciilist, allotted NLU, Jodhpur as per marks secured 'by, her and. according to preference made in her application. After yipulblication of the seat allocation, petitioner sent a letter on ..__07.07',;2008 requesting respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to allot a seat in i"*.__West Bengal National University of Juridica] Sciences, Kolkata P/A/3 which the petitioner has mentioned as fourth preference in _.her application. By then the petitioner had paid the requisite joined the NLU, Jodhpur. Since all the seats were alreadﬁl/_::'filled H other National Law Schools based on pre:ference« of'-.the«3.ar'1'di_dates«' I' concerned and the marks secured by them the petitioner ;cai1'vnotvb'e'--~. l transferred from NLU, Jodhpur to Ksikaag 'THcreli'«;iié"'t1i'e prayer as sought for in the trielvpupetitioneryltoltransfer her from NLU Jodhpur to ca._ﬁ;:V;v{3./t.'.ifji7:t";__granted. More over the petitionerjisalrcadiadniitted"to:lslLLT.r._.§li5dhpur and She is studying there since--::t_ixgto. y'e'ars,:"l5Ic. .sea»t-'is "vacant at NUJ S, Kolkata. In View of the *sarne,lnod'-relieflyaspralyed in the writ petition can be granted to the petiptionerl. ._ ' Vlixecordingly the"pc°I.i_tiGn fails and the same is dismissed. Sd/-9 JUDQE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court