Shekar C S vs The Vishveshveraya ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 7162 Kant

                           -1-


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                       PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE

                          AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

        WRIT APPEAL NO.136 OF 2021 (EDN-RES)

BETWEEN:

1 . SHEKAR C.S
    S/O SUBRAMANYA A
    AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
    R/AT C/O C.R.VIVEK
    SRI DURGA PROVISION STORE
    OPPOSITE TO MAHALAKSHMI SWEETS,
    CAR STREET,
    CHAMARAJANAGAR-571 313.

2 . ARJUN B.A.
    S/O ANANTHAMURTHY B.S.
    AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
    STUDENT IN BACHELOR OF
    ENGINEERING
    SRI VENKATESHWARA COLLEGE OF
    ENGINEERING
    VIDYA NAGAR, YELAHANKA
    BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
    BENGALURU DISTRICT-560 057.

                                             ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SRIKANTH M.P, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    THE VISHVESHVERAYA TECHNOLOGICAL
      -UNIVERSITY
      BELAGAVI-590 018
      REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

2.    THE BRINDAVAN COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
      DWARKA NAGAR, BAGALURU
                                  -2-


     YELAHANKA, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
     BENGALURU DISTRICT-560 063.

3.   SRI VENKATESHWARA COLLEGE OF
     ENGINEERING
     VIDHYA NAGAR, YELAHANKA,
     BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
     BENGALURU DISTRICT-560 057.

                                                  ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI AMBRISH, B.N, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SANTHOSH S. NAGARALE, ADVOCATE)


     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 21/10/2020 PASSED ON W.P.NO.52170/2019
BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT AND
ETC.

      THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING-INTERLOCUTORY
APPLICATION THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, CHIEF
JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:



                            JUDGMENT

This intra-Court appeal has been filed challenging the

order dated 21.10.2020 passed in W.P.No.52170/2019

(EDN-RES).

2. As per the facts of the case in brief, the

appellant-2nd petitioner had joined the Engineering degree in

3rd respondent-Institution through direct entry during the

year 2008. The appellant-1st petitioner was originally a

student of Diploma in Engineering (Electronics and

Communications) and after his completion of his diploma, he

joined Bachelor Degree of Engineering through lateral entry

during the year 2010 at 2nd respondent-Institution. 1st

respondent-University vide notification dated 13.09.2017,

had come out with one time exit scheme to enable students

of non CBC's (Non Choice Base Credit System). According to

the notification, the scheme was in respect of the students

who are under 2010 scheme or from 2006 to 2010. The

appellants/petitioners contend that they were also covered

under the scheme and were entitled to clear the backlog

through one time exit scheme. As per the scheme, the

admission of the students similarly placed that of the

appellants/petitioners were to join the 7th and 8th semesters,

with a rider that the students will be permitted to appear for

the examinations after gaining the eligibility during

December, 2017 to January, 2018 and the subsequent

semesters examinations conducted by the University.

However, under the conditions it was provided that students

who fail to gain eligibility to respective semesters after

December, 2017 to January, 2018 examination shall

continue to attend the regular classes of 6th or 8th semesters

course to fulfill attendance and I.A. requirements as

prescribed by the University and that they will appear for

only backlog subjects during June-July, 2018 examination.

3. The appellants/petitioners had applied as per the

notification dated 23.04.2018 and it was informed that their

eligibility would be determined later, however, no order was

passed as such, the appellants/petitioners shall be permitted

to appear for backlog subjects examination as per the

notification. His submission is that the learned Single Judge

has failed to consider the contention raised in the writ

petition and as such, has dismissed the writ petition. In the

similar circumstances, the Court has granted indulgence and

certain students have been permitted to complete their

course.

4. We have considered the submission made by

learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel

appearing for respondent No.1 and gone through the record.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants has failed to

show to the Court any provision under the Regulations which

permit the extension of period of completion of the course.

As such, we are of the considered view that the University

cannot be directed to extend the period for completion of the

course contrary to OB 6.2 Regulations. Even in case, the

University has extended the period of completion of the

course to some of the students, the same does not confer

any right to claim right of equality as construed under Article

14 of the Constitution of India. The concept of equal

treatment under Article 14 of the Constitution of India

cannot be pressed into service in such cases. There has to be

legal provision under which the appellants/petitioners can

claim the right to get a direction to the University for

extension of period for completion of the course and in

absence of any such provision, they cannot claim equality.

6. We do not find any infirmity or illegality in the

order impugned. The appeal is devoid of merits and is

accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

KPS