RAJIV KUNDRA Vs. UNIVERSITY OF BANGALORE GHANABHARATHI BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the petitioner, who belongs to a london based family, came to India for "education" in m.s. ramaiah medical college, Bangalore, which is affiliated to Bangalore university. He was admitted to the college as a student of medicine leading to a degree in m.b.b.s. he joined the college in 1985. His quest for education started on an uneven keel and did not run smooth as he planned it to be. After initial "break-through" in the first year examination, it appears he was caught on the wrong foot after the second year examination. Though he claims to have passed in the first year m.b.b.s. examination in all the subjects, subsequent discovery during the course of the pendency of the writ petition points the other way. What really brought more information on the adventure of the petitioner is the withdrawal of the marks card from him by the Bangalore university. The pugnacious submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner starting with a bang and ending in a whimper was on account of the disturbing information from the university that the petitioner had defacto failed in one of the subjects in the first year m.b.b.s. examination. Rattled by the information, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner after initial flush of belligerence, abandoned the first relief. Against this back drop, the case of the petitioner requires a close look.

(2.) it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the syndicate of the university has no jurisdiction to rusticate the petitioner from the college without a report from the vice-chancellor and that under Section 62 of the Karnataka state universities Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'), no punishment can be imposed without giving the delinquent a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed action. It is further submitted that the university did not issue any show cause notice and muchless there was a hearing or an enquiry and therefore the order of rustication is void ab initio. In essence, the grievance made out is that there is violation of rules of natural justice.

(3.) another important contention urged on be half of the petitioner is that the markscard which was originally issued to the petitioner was a genuine one and that there was no justification for withdrawing the marks card from the petitioner and in issuing a revised one in its place. Interestingly enough it is submitted "in any event, the petitioner is not responsible even if there is a mistake in the original document and he further submits that in the event of there being any mistake in the original marks card, the respondents are estopped from correcting the marks card especially after the petitioner was deprived of an opportunity to appearing for failed subjects during the examination held in July 1989 thus making the petitioner waste one academic year in relation to those subjects". Inter alia the petitioner also urged as follows:-