MALAVIKA RAMANAND Vs. KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the students pursuing five years B.A.LL.B., course in the colleges affiliated to the 1st respondent-University. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the 1st respondent - University denied approval of their promotion/admission to the 3rd semester law course despite the petitioners clearing the 1st semester examination, on the ground that the petitioners-students had shortage of attendance for the

(2.) nd semester. It is the contention of the petitioners that in the 3rd semester, the petitioners had more than the requisite of attendance of 70% and they were writing the 2nd semester examination as repeaters along with the 3rd semester examinations. The action of the 1st respondent-University declining to forward the application relating to payment of examination fees pertaining to the 3rd semester along with the 2nd semester backlog papers is questioned in these petitions. 2. learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.63253/2016 inviting the attention of this Court to the clarification issued by respondent No.1-University dtd. 27/9/2013 Annexure-J to the writ petition, submitted that Regulations 13 and 15 of the University governing the 5 year B.A. LL.B., Integrated degree course in law was considered and interpreted by the University clarifying that Rule 13 provides, the percentage of attendance required for writing the examination only and it is not for the purpose of promoting a student to the next semester. Similarly, it was clarified that Rule 15 is related to promotion of the student from one class to another. It was clarified that if a student could not write another end semester of one semester due to unavoidable reasons, by writing another end semester of the same academic year and by passing minimum of two subjects in it, can get promoted to the next year. Further it was contended that the University has clarified that if the student is not eligible to write the examination, he has to pay the examination fee for the remaining eligible to continue the course. In terms of the Regulations of the respondent No.1-University, the petitioners-students are eligible to get promoted to the 3rd semester and appear for the said examinations along with the backlog subjects of the 2nd semester as repeaters. The requisite criteria prescribed under the Regulation of the 1st respondent-University for promotion to the next class is a pass in minimum two subjects from either one semester or from two semesters of the academic year. In terms of the said Regulations, the petitioners are entitled for promotion to the 3rd semester. The respondent -University having clarified these aspects, cannot take a different stance now with a different version, defeating the rights of the petitioners-students. Annexure-A issued by the respondent-University is contrary to its own clarifications and accordingly, seeks for quashing the said communication with a direction to the university to approve the admission of the petitioners-students to the next class and declare/approve the results of the examinations to which they have appeared pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court besides permitting the petitioners-students to pursue the law course.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4-college supports the arguments advanced at the hands of the Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and submitted that the college acted on the clarifications issued by the University as regards the promotion of the students to the next class. The college has not denied any permission for the petitioners-students to appear for the 3rd semester examinations along with the backlog subjects of the 2nd semester as repeaters.