Karnataka High Court
WP/34180/2013 of DR. RAVIKUMAR H Vs THE BANGALORE UNIVERSITY on 20 December 2013
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 20 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2013 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY WRIT PETITION No.34180 OF 2013 (EDN-RES) BETWEEN: Dr. Ravikumar .H, Son of Hemagiri Gowda, Aged about 34 years, Research Associate Bangalore University, No.3, 3 rd
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 20[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER, 2013
BEFORE
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
-WRIT PETITION No.34180 OF 2013 (EDNRES)
BETWEEN:
Dr. Ravikumar .H, Son of Hemagiri Gowda, Aged about 34 years, Research Associate Bangalore University, No.3, 3[rd] Main, 8[th] Cross, BEML Layout, Basaveswaranagar, Bangalore – 560 071.
…PETITIONER
(By Shri. Rajeswara P.N., Advocate)
AND:
The Bangalore University Gnana Bharathi Campus, Bangalore – 560 056, Represented by its Registrar (Evaluation).
…RESPONDENT
(By Shri. T.P. Rajendra Kumar Sungay, Advocate )
*****
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondent University to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 25.5.2013 vide Annexure – A to give effect to course work of M.Phil Programme as per the U.G.C. circular of August 2009 vide Annexure- N and etc; This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary in ‘B’ Group this day, the court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent.
Page 1 of 2
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that though Ph.D degree has been awarded by the Bangalore University, the coursework undertaken by him in the Bharathidasan University in respect of the Ph.D course is not given due credence under the UGC Regulations of 2009 and it was incumbent on the respondent –University to take into consideration such coursework.
3. However, the Counsel for the respondent would refute this claim and would submit that notwithstanding the UGC Regulations, it is only open to the University adopting any such requirement of taking into account the coursework rendered by a candidate in some other university, that it would be permissible, otherwise it is impermissible and would seek to reiterate this as a primary objection.
4. In any event, the petitioner had made a representation to the Bangalore University to consider his coursework in the above circumstances. The respondent – University apart from raising a contention through the counsel appearing before the court, has not indicated its view on this aspect of the matter. Therefore, it would be more appropriate if the university should take a decision on the representation of the petitioner so that the petitioner would be in a position to pursue his remedies further.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent – University to pass an appropriate order on his representations either to afford him the benefit of the coursework rendered by him before the Bharathidasan University or to state, if it is not possible, the reasons for not taking into account such benefit. This shall be done expeditiously, in any event, within a period of four weeks, as it would be necessary for the petitioner to produce such a certificate of having done the coursework, in order to enable him to seek exemption from appearing for the National Eligibility Test. Therefore, the respondent shall pass an appropriate order after consideration of the petitioner’s representation within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
nv
���� JUDGE
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…