BASAVARAJ A PAUL Vs. KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY DHARWAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) by this petition, petitioner has sought the issuance of writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order contained in Annexure-D dated 16-2-1989 whereby the syndicate of the Karnataka university, dharwad, resolved not to award gold medal in respect of l.l.m., examination held in april, 1988 on the ground that the petitioner did not secure 60% of marks. The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of writ or order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondent to award Dr. S. Channabasappa memorial gold medal to the petitioner. The facts of the case in brief are that, the petitioner passed the l.l.m., examination held in april, 1988. The university as per Annexure-A to the writ petition has viewed that the petitioner has been eligible to get the first rank at the l.l.m., examination and he may apply for the rank certificate along with necessary fees for issue of the same in the form of challan of state bank of india, Karnataka university campus or a demand draft drawn in the name of finance officer, Karnataka university, dharwad. The petitioner's case is that, he has applied for first rank certificate in relation to l.l.m., examination and the petitioner was given that rank certificate. The petitioner's case is that, petitioner being the first ranker in l.l.m., examination held in april, 1988, the petitioner was entitled to the award of the gold medal called Dr. S. Channabasappa memorial gold medal and university prize fund of Rs. 150/- being first ranker in l.l.m., the petitioner made a representation to the university on 7-2-1989, but of no avail. Instead, the opposite parties communicated to the petitioner that petitioner cannot be awarded the gold medal as he has secured less than 60% of marks. So the petitioner has preferred this writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of india.

(2.) i have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, at the time when the petitioner has passed the l.l.m., examination, the petitioner under the ordinance governing the award of gold medals and prizes had been entitled to the award of gold medal and the university prize fund of Rs. 150/-. The petitioner has produced copy of the ordinance of the syndicate bearing resolution No. 28(iii), dated 21-3-1987. According to petitioner's case, there are three conditions as per ordinances 99(a), 99(b) and 99(c). But these conditions were subject to the exception contained in ordinance 99(d) and conditions contained in ordinance 99(c) did not apply to the l.l.m., courses as per resolution dated 21-3-1987. Petitioner's case is that, under ordinance 99(c) no doubt there is a condition mentioned that of having secured 60% of marks in the concerned paper and the other condition is that of being passed the said examination in first attempt. The petitioner's case is that, as per condition (c), a candidate shall be eligible for award of gold medal and scholarship he has to pass the concerned examination in first attempt and to secure 60% of marks at the examination as a whole, or 60% in the concerned paper or subject if the award relates to the paper or the subject. The petitioner's case is that, in view of ordinance 99(d) nothing of this condition be applied to the l.l.b., or l.l.m., course.

(3.) on behalf of the university Sri r.h.handanagoudar submitted that there has been an amendment in the ordinance with effect from February 1989 vide resolution No. 55, dated 1-2-1989 and this ordinance 99(d) had been deleted. The exception is only provided to condition contained in ordinance 99(a) and that condition will not apply to the case of course referred to therein. But, so far as securing atleast 60% of marks is concerned, the exemption has been deleted and it means, that condition did operate as a consideration for and in the matter of grant of the gold medal or the prize or scholarship. Sri chandanagoudar submitted in this view of the amendment, the university authorities when they passed resolution dated 16-2-1989 they did not commit any error or illegality in refusing to award the gold medal.