Karnataka High Court
Mohameed Yasseen vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 October, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:42803
WP No. 6143 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 6143 OF 2025 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
MOHAMMED YASSEEN,
S/O M.NAZEER AHMED,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
OCC: POLYTECHNIC LECTURER,
H.M.S. GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE,
TUMAKURU - 572 105,
R/AT 2ND MAIN, 2ND CROSS,
NRUPATUNGA EXTENSION,
TUMAKURU - 572 102.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NATARAJ G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by
NAGAVENI 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Location: REPRESENTED BY ITS
HIGH COURT
OF PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
KARNATAKA
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE AND
TECHNICAL EDUCATION,
PALACE ROAD, SESHADRI ROAD ,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:42803
WP No. 6143 of 2025
HC-KAR
3. THE DIRECTOR,
DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE AND
TECHNICAL EDUCATION,
PALACE ROAD, SESHADRI ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. THE KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY,
MUKTHA GANGOTHRI,
MYSORE - 575 006,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
5. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR
TECHNICAL EDUCATION (AICTE),
AN AUTONOMOUS ORGANISATION
UNDER MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
NELSON MANDELA MARG,
VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI - 110 070,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. H.R.SHOWRI, ADVOCATE FOR R5;
SRI. T.P.RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENDORSEMENT DTD 06.02.2025 BEING ISSUED BY THE R-3
VIDE ORDER NO. ¸ÀASÉå: rnE/12/¹r¹(2)/2025 (1654495) VIDE
ANNX-J IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERN AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:42803
WP No. 6143 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
"a) Issue Writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the
endorsement dated:-06-02-2025 being issued by
the respondent No:-3 vide order No:- ¸ÀASÉå:
rnE/12/¹r¹(2)/2025(1654495) vide Annexure -J
insofar as petitioner is concern, in the interest of
justice and equity.
b) Issue Writ in the nature of mandamus by directing
the respondent No:1 and 3 to recognise the
M.Tech degree vide Annexure-C being done by the
Petitioner and issue NOC for pursuating Ph.D.
degree in an appropriate university in the interest
of justice and equity.
c) And to pass such other order or directions as deem
fit under the facts and circumstances of the case
to meet the ends of justice."
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner,
learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3, learned counsel
for respondent No.4-University and learned counsel for
respondent No.5- All India Council For Technical Education
(AICTE) and perused the material on record.
NC: 2025:KHC:42803
HC-KAR
3. In addition to reiterating the various
contentions urged in the petition referring to the material
on record, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my
attention to the impugned endorsement at Annexure-J
dated 06.02.2025 in order to point out that the same is
cryptic, laconic, non-speaking and unreasoned
endorsement without assigning proper or cogent reasons
as to why the request made by H.M.S. Polytechnic for
issuance of NOC so as to enable the petitioner to pursue
Ph.D degree has been rejected. In this context, it is
submitted that except stating that the AICTE had
intimated the respondent No.2 that the degree obtained
by the petitioner had not been recognized, no other
reasons are forthcoming in the impugned endorsement
which is illegal, arbitrary and the same deserve to be
quashed. It is also submitted that in so far as degree
obtained by the petitioner from respondent No.4-
University is concerned, the same did not require any
approval from AICTE, as held by the Apex Court, this
NC: 2025:KHC:42803
HC-KAR
Court and the Central Administrative Tribunal in the
following judgments:
(1) KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY vs.
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS in
W.P.No.34255/2016 (GM-RES) disposed on
27.06.2016.
(2) Order passed in OA No.1011/2016 by the
Central Administrative Tribunal at Chandigarh.
(3) BHARATHIDASAN UNIVERSITY AND
ANOTHER vs. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR
TECHNICAL EDUCATION AND OTHERS, (2001)
8 SCC 676.
Therefore, he submitted that the impugned endorsement
at Annexure-J dated 6.2.2025 deserves to be quashed and
necessary directions be issued to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to
issue an NOC in favour of the petitioner as sought for and
the H.M.S. Polytechnic where he is working as a lecturer.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would also invite my
attention to the Notification dated 20.05.2020 issued by
respondent No.5-AICTE and submit that the same was in
favour of petitioner.
NC: 2025:KHC:42803
HC-KAR
4. Per contra, learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1
to 3 and learned counsel for respondent No.5-AICTE would
reiterate various contentions urged in the Statement of
Objections and submit that there is no merit in the petition
and the same is liable to be dismissed. In support of the
submission of learned counsel for respondent No.5-AICTE,
he relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case
of ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORPORATION
LIMITED vs. RABI SANKAR PATRO AND OTHERS AND
CONNECTED MATTERS, (2018) 1 SCC 468.
5. Though several contentions have been urged by
both sides in support of their respective claims, a perusal
of the impugned endorsement at Annexure-J will indicate
that except referring to the communication at
Annexure-R2 dated 29.07.2024 issued by the AICTE to the
respondent No.2, the aforesaid notification dated
20.05.2020 and the principles laid down in the judgment
relied upon by both the sides have not been referred to by
NC: 2025:KHC:42803
HC-KAR
respondent No.2 while issuing the impugned endorsement
which is a non-speaking, cryptic, laconic and unreasoned
endorsement, which deserves to be set aside and the
matter is remitted back to respondent No.2 for
reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law by giving
an additional opportunity in favour of the petitioner and by
leaving open all contentions.
6. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
[i] Petition is hereby allowed.
[ii] Annexure-J dated 06.02.2025 is hereby
set-aside.
[iii] Matter is remitted back to respondent No.2 for
reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law.
[iv] Petitioner shall appear before respondent No.2
on 17.11.2025 without awaiting further notice from
respondent No.2.
NC: 2025:KHC:42803
HC-KAR
[v] Liberty is reserved in favour of petitioner to
submit pleadings, documents, notifications, judgments,
etc., which shall be considered by respondent No.2 who
shall provide sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the
petitioner and take appropriate decisions/pass appropriate
orders, in accordance with law, within a period of one
month from 17.11.2025.
[vi] Interim order passed by this Court which
permitted the petitioner to pursue his Ph.D programme
would continue to remain in force and operate between
the parties till respondent No.2 passes appropriate orders
as stated supra.
[vii] All rival contentions and all aspects of the
matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the
merits/demerits of the rival contentions.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
CBC
CT:SS
