THOTA RAVINDRA Vs. GULBARGA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This batch of writ petitions filed by a group of Post Graduate Medical Students from the Gulbarga University raises one clear cut point for decision namely the question as to whether these petrs. who are now doing the Post Graduate Course after doing their Diploma Courses, or who are doing Diploma after having done the Senior Housemanship are entitled to claim the one year exemption that was provided for under the University's Regulations prior to 10-7-95. The position is undisputed that at the time when all these petrs. joined their courses of study, that the Regulation did provide for such exemption of one year but the University authorities by a notification issued on 10-7-95 which is under challenge in this group of writ petitions withdrawing the one year exemption. As a necessary consequence, the petrs. contend that though they had asked for the one year exemption that the University refused to make it available on the ground that the one year exemption rule is no longer applicable and the same having been withdrawn and consequently that their applications were either returned or rejected. It is against this decision that the present set of petitions has been filed.

(2.) I have heard the learned advocate who represents the petrs. as also the learned advocate who represents the University. The University has filed its objections in all these petitions and has also produced the directions issued by the Supreme Court and reliance is sought to be placed on certain earlier decisions of this Court in more or less similar cases. Broadly, the contention raised is that it is within the power of the University to take a decision with regard to the grant of exemptions and that consequently, the petrs. are not entitled to question the same through these petitions. Reliance is sought to be placed in this regard on the provisions of Regulation 39 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 apart from which, the respts. learned advocate submitted that the Supreme Court had occasion to direct that the system of uniformity should be brought about as far as different courses are concerned. Learned advocate has also submitted that the matter has been considered by the Academic Council of the University as also by the Syndicate and that after a very careful appraisal, that a decision was arrived at to withdraw the one year exemption in order to bring a degree of uniformity with regard to the course of study to all the students pursuing their courses. Learned advocate emphasised the fact that the University authorities are concerned with the maintenance of high academic standards particularly where Post Graduate students are concerned and that secondly it was not found desirable to grant exemption in respect of what the earlier considerations were. He further submitted that the rule has emerged as a result of not only the Courts directions but also very careful deliberations by experts in the academic field and no case whatsoever has been made out for challenge to that decision.

(3.) I need to record that the petrs. learned advocate has clarified that he has not attached the validity of the decision nor has he challenged the rationale behind it but his challenge is confined to the method of implementation or in other words, to the timing of the decision and the applicability of the decision to the present batch of students. Haying regard to this position, and having regard to what has been pointed out on behalf of the University, there is no need for this Court to examine the validity of that decision. I need to observe that prima facie, the University authorities do appear to be more than fully justified in having taken this step. The validity of decision is therefore upheld.