AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Aravind Kumar, J. - Petitioners are seeking for a direction to respondents 2 to 4 to issue marks card and consequently issue degree certificates to petitioners 2 to 101 for having successfully completed B.Ed. Course during the academic year 2014-15 if they are found otherwise not being ineligible.
Petitioners 2 to 101 were admitted to the B.Ed. Course in the 1st petitioner-college for the academic year 2014-15. In the earlier round of litigation they had sought for issuance of mandamus to 2nd respondent-University to grant affiliation to 1st petitioner-college for B.Ed. Course for the academic years 2013-14 and 2014-15. This Court after considering rival contentions by order dated 9-11-2015 issued following directions:
"15. Writ Petition Nos. 20219 to 20319 of 2015 are disposed of with the following directions:
(i) The respondent-University shall examine whether the petitioners 2 to 101 meet the eligibility criteria for being admitted to B.Ed. Course. If they are not meeting the eligibility criteria, their admission proposals are to be rejected.
(ii) The respondent-University shall examine whether they meet the minimum prescribed attendance required to appear for the examination of those students, whose admissions are approved.
(iii) Such of the students who are found to be eligible to be admitted to the Course and who have the requisite attendance alone would be entitled to have the results of the First Semester examination of B.Ed. Course declared.
(iv) Such of the students whose admissions are approved shall be transferred by the respondent-University to any recognised and affiliated college. For the limited purpose of transferring the students from the first petitioner-College, the University shall treat the first petitioner-College as a disaffiliated College and exercise the power conferred by Section 63(11) of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000.
(v) I impose the deterrent costs of Rs. 2,00,000/-, that is, Rs. 1,000/- per petitioner (200x1000= Rs. 2,00,000/-), on the first petitioner-College. The costs shall be paid by the first petitioner-College to the respondent-University in ten days'' time. The respondent-University has to take such measures as are necessary to ensure that the first petitioner does not recover the amounts towards the costs from the petitioning students, namely, petitioners 2 to 101 in both the batches of writ petitions (W.P. Nos. 20219 to 20319 of 2015 and 22206 to 22306 of 2014).
(vi) In view of the disposal of the main matter, LA. No. 1 of 2015 in W.P. Nos. 20219 to 20319 of 2015 is dismissed as having become unnecessary.
(vii) The first petitioner-College is directed not to admit any students to the B.Ed. Course for the succeeding academic years without the affiliation of the University. It shall file an affidavit with this Court undertaking to abide by this direction within ten days from today, after furnishing a copy of the affidavit to Sriyuths M. Keshava Reddy and N.K. Ramesh, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-Bangalore University."
During the pendency of said writ petitions petitioners had appeared for 1st Semester examination of B.Ed. Course held during June 2015 and as such the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had directed the University to examine as to whether petitioners would meet the eligibility criteria and if they had requisite attendance to declare their results. University was also directed to transfer those students whose admissions are approved by it to any recognised and affiliated college of respondent-University. It was also made clear ''hat for the purpose of transferring students from 1st petitioner-college therein, the University shall treat the college as disaffiliated college and exercise power conferred under Section 63(11) of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000. On account of 1st petitioner having admitted petitioners 2 to 101 therein without there being affiliation this Court had imposed cost by way of deterrent costs a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and directed the 1st petitioner-college to deposit the same with the University within 10 days and for reporting compliance the matter was ordered to be listed on 24-11-2015.
Pursuant to the said direction issued 1st petitioner deposited cost and affidavit of compliance also came to be filed. When the matter was listed as ordered on 24-11-2015 co-ordinate Bench of this Court placed the compliance affidavit on record after noticing that deterrent costs has been deposited. Directions extracted herein above issued in W.P. Nos. 20219 to 20319 of 2015 and connected matters herein referred to supra would indicate that respondent-University had been directed to transfer the students whose admissions are approved to any recognised-affiliated college of the University. However, no steps had been taken by the University in this regard. On the other hand 1st petitioner after having complied with the direction issued by this Court has submitted list of students whose admissions were required to be approved which was duly approved by the University on 17-12-2015 as per Annexure-Q. At this juncture the University was required to either inform 1st petitioner to forward the list of students who are to be transferred from 1st petitioner-college to any other recognised or affiliated college of the University or it ought to have undertaken said exercise by itself as had been directed by this Court. For reasons best known this exercise was not undertaken by the respondent-University. In the meanwhile examination of II Semester which was due to be held in the month of December 2015 for the academic year 2014-15 was held by the University during January 2016. List of students who had taken up II Semester examination is as per Annexure-R. It is not in dispute that 1st petitioner-College after having accessed the e-mail of the University had downloaded the hall tickets of those students whose names are indicated in Annexure-R and said students have taken up examination of II Semester without there being any prohibition indicated by the University. In other words University did not object to for petitioners 2 to 101. taking up II Semester examination during January 2016. To put it differently list of students whose names are indicated in Annexure-R have appeared for II Semester examination conducted by respondent-University during January 2016.
Had the University taken steps to transfer these students to any other recognised and affiliated college of the University in compliance of order dated 9-11-2015, no occasion would have arisen for the petitioners 2 to 101. to seek for a direction to announce the results inasmuch as these students would have appeared for the examination through transferee college and University would have automatically announced the results of petitioners. But on the other hand the present situation has been brought about by the University itself, namely it has failed to comply with the directions issued by this Court to transfer the students from 1st petitioner-college to any other recognised/affiliated college of the University and it has also allowed petitioners 2 to 101 to take up II Semester examination in January 2016 and thereby brought about the present situation. Yet another course which was left to the respondent-University was to seek for appropriate modification of order passed on 9-11-2015 by this Court. This exercise was also not undertaken by the University. In the alternate University could have informed 1st petitioner-college to furnish list of students who are to be transferred to any other recognised/affiliated college of respondent-University which was also not done. However, during second week of December 2015, respondent-University has approved the admission of petitioners 2 to 101 as indicated in Annexure-Q.
During the pendency of Writ Petition Nos. 20219 to 20319 of 2015 and connected matters and immediately after its disposal respondent has allowed petitioners 2 to 101 herein to appear for II Semester examination conducted during January 2016. If for any reason petitioners 2 to 101 did not meet eligibility criteria to appear for II Semester during January 2016, University would have definitely informed either 1st petitioner-college or petitioners 2 to 101 herein indicating the reason for prohibiting the petitioners 2 to 101 from appearing in the examination held during January 2016. On account of respondent-University itself having allowed the petitioners 2 to 101 to appear for the examination held during January 2016 the only irresistible conclusion which will have to be drawn is there was no drawback or ineligibility acquired by petitioners 2 to 101 from appearing in the said examination held during January 2016. The very fact that they have appeared in the examination held during January 2016 without any protest from the University itself would indicate that respondent-University was fully conscious of there being no embargo to prevent petitioners 2 to 101 from appearing in the examination held during January 2016. In that view of the matter respondent-University cannot take a stand that either 1st petitioner-college having not informed of the students who are required to be transferred to any other affiliated/recognised college of respondent-University as a reason for not announcing the results of petitioners 2 to 101 who had appeared for examination held during January 2016 or to contend that on account of non-furnishing of details of students by 1st petitioner-college respondent-University had not taken steps to transfer these students from 1st petitioner-college to any other college.
Order passed by this Court on 9-11-2015 does not even remotely suggest about any positive act done which was required to be done by 1st petitioner-college in this regard. On the other hand the University was required to transfer such of those students whose admissions were approved to any recognised or affiliated college of the University and despite approving the admission of petitioners 2 to 101 as per Annexure-Q University had not transferred them to any other college affiliated to University as it was required to do. As such this Court is of the considered view that petitioners 2 to 101 would be entitled for their results being declared insofar as II Semester B.Ed. examination conducted during January 2016 which would be subject to condition that they possessed requisite attendance and were not otherwise ineligible.
For reasons afore stated proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Writ petitions are hereby allowed in part.
Respondents 2 to 4 are hereby directed to declare the results of II Semester B.Ed. Examination conducted during January 2016 relating to academic year 2014-15 insofar as petitioners 2 to 101 are concerned on:
(a) 1st petitioner-college furnishing material to establish that classes of II Semester was conducted to these students;
(b) Petitioners 2 to 101 had requisite attendance to appear for the II Semester examination;
(c) On production of such material respondents 2 to 4 shall declare the results of those petitioners who are having minimum prescribed attendance and also there being no drawback for such petitioners to appear in the examination;
(d) On declaration of such results respondent-University shall issue marks card, as also degree certificates to such of those students who have duly passed in the course and who would meet the eligibility criteria as indicated herein above. Said exercise shall be undertaken by the University within an outer limit of four weeks from the dale of receipt of certified copy of this order.
No order as to costs.