AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By the impugned endorsement at Annexure-D the petitioner has been informed that her case has not been considered in the selection list since there was no Kannada at the graduation stage.
In paragraph 2 of the statement of objections, the respondents have sought to justify the impugned endorsement.
The stand taken by the respondents is untenable. Annexure-A is the marks sheet of the petitioner. It shows that she has studied Kannada. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has produced copy of relevant provision of the Karnatak University Act, 1949. Section 176 of the Act prescribes the eligibility for admission to the first year courses. Kannada is one of the languages prescribed therein. Thus, petitioner possess Kannada. However, the respondent has erroneously issued the impugned endorsement without verifying the testimonials produced by the petitioner. Her case should have been considered by the respondents in the light of Annexure-A. Non-consideration of her case for the reason mentioned in Annexure-D is bad in law. Hence, the impugned endorsement is wholly unsustainable.
In the circumstances, the [University] is hereby directed to consider the case of the petitioner without taking into consideration her age since her case has not been considered erroneously. If she is found eligible, she may be accommodated in any one of the available posts or by creating a supernumerary post.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. This order shall be complied within two months from the date of receipt of this order.