High CourtsSingle Bench(2011) 02 KAR CK 0098

V. Nandini and V. Bharath Kumar vs The Vice Chancellor Bengalooru University, The Registrar (Evaluation) Bengalooru University and The Principal Vidyavahini First Grade College

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 1 February 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ram Mohan Reddy, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No''s. 4857 and 4858 of 2011

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 353 words

Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—Since common question of fact and that of law arises for decision making, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, petitions are clubbed together, finally heard and are disposed of by this order.

2.

Petitioners, when admitted to the threes year degree course in Bachelor of Business Management (BBM) in the 3rd Respondent/college during the academic year 2004-05, completed the course, while Petitioner in W.P.4857/11 was declared failed in one subject in the 2nd Semester and one subject in the 4th Semester, the Petitioner in W.P.4858/11 was declared failed in one subject in 4th Semester. The Petitioners did not pass in the subjects declared failed, even after 3 years of the completion of the course. The Petitioner''s request for permission to appear for the said subjects in the examinations,/scheduled during March 201.1, when rejected by a refusal to accept the examination fee by the Respondent/University, has resulted in these petitions.

3.

Sri Keshav Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent/Bangalore University, points out. to paragraph 2 of the regulations pertaining to the BBM degree semester scheme for the academic year 2004-05 to contend that the Petitioners was extended the benefit of completing the degree within 6 years from the date of admission to the 1st Semester of the BBM degree course and having not done so, are disentitled to any further extension in terms of the regulations. According to the learned Counsel, the regulations do not provide discretion to the authorities in the matter of extension of time.

4.

The submission of the learned government advocate is not opposed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

5.

In the teeth of the express stipulation in the regulations relating to the duration of the course and the period during which the candidate is required to complete the course, it. is needless to state that the Petitioners are disentitled to appear for and seek continuance of the course for yet another year after the expiry of 6 years from the date of the entry into the 1st Semester of BBM degree in the year 2004-05.

Petitioners are accordingly rejected.