AMAR GIRI POLYTECHNIC RUN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this case originally approached this Court with a very limited grievance. According to them, the parent body which is running a polytechnic namely, Maruthi Education and Seva Trust had applied to the Government for permission to shift the institution from Arsikere to Bangalore. It is their case that the matter was pending before the concerned authorities and that at one stage they have to even move this Court for appropriate directions. We are concerned with what had happened in the month of November, 1995 when an officer of the Education Department had communicated to the petitioner that as a special case, the 15 students would be permitted to take the ensuing examinations. The Secretary of the Board of Technical Education to whom the directions were communicated sent a reply dated 14-11-1995 pointing out to the petitioner that they should comply with three conditions none of which are of any consequence. The examinations were to commence on the very next day i.e. 15-11-1995 which this officer was aware of and to my mind irrespective of the other technicalities, the predominant consideration would have been that he could have called upon the petitioner, even if he wanted that petitioner to comply with the various requirements, that they should have ensured that these were done without preventing the students from missing the examinations. As a result of the reply dated 14-11-1995, the petitioner 's students missed the examinations and they were forced to move this Court for urgent orders which they obtained. The students accordingly completed their remaining papers except the first three which they had missed.

(2.) The respondents have now filed their reply and they have raised several issues including the fact that the starting of the institution at Bangalore required not only the sanction of the State Government but also the permission of the AICTE at Delhi and that according to them, up to the present point of time that permission has not been obtained. Their contention therefore is that these are the primary requirements which must have been firstly complied with after which alone the institution can be permitted to start functioning and in the absence of which, it is contended that no recognition can be given to he institution for purposes of permitting its students to appear at the examinations. The matter is further complicated because the petitioner 's learned advocate informs me that subsequently the Government has granted the requisite permission for the transfer. He also states that AICTE desires to verify whether these formalities have been completed and that the necessary communication has also gone to the body and he submits that in this back ground the petitioners have every reason to explain that the sanction from that authority will also be obtained. The learned Government Advocate points out and perhaps rightly that this subsequently obtained permission or sanction cannot alter the position that is earlier obtained.

(3.) It is in the aforesaid background that the petitioner 's learned Advocate submits that he is restricting his prayer only to two aspects, the first being that since the Secretary of the Board on technical and unsustainable grounds had prevented the students from taking their three papers that it is only fair that the Board be directed to hold a special examination in these three papers for the students concerned. The second submission is that apart from the theory papers, certain practical examinations are required to be conducted and that the Board should be directed to conduct these practical examinations so that the interim order passed by this Court can be given full effect to in true spirit. The respondents have raised their objections to following this procedure in so far as they maintain that unless and until the institution is duly recognised that they are not obliged to conduct any of these examinations.