PRATHISTA RAMAMURTHY Vs. SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE three petitioners are the students of the 5th respondent -Bishop Cotton Women's Christian College, Bangalore, affiliated to the 3rd respondent -Bangalore university. They have jointed the Bachelor of Arts Course in the year 2010. They are now studying in the sixth and the final semester. Petitioner No.1 - Prathista Ramamurthy has to clear the subject, Psychology in the fifth semester. Similarly, the 3rd petitioner - Lopsang Chetten Gurung is also required to clear the subject, Psychology of the fifth semester. The 2nd petitioner Deepthi - has to clear subjects, Kannada of the first semester, Kannada of the 3rd semester and Psychology of the fifth semester.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioners is that although the regulations framed by the Bangalore University do not authorize the University to postpone the holding of the supplementary examinations for the failed students, the University is calling upon the petitioners to appear for the examinations only when the examinations to odd and even semesters are held. In other words, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that if the petitioner -Students have to wait to take the supplementary examinations only along with the even or odd semesters as the case may be which will mean that they will have to wait for one year to appear for that examination. It is in this background, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to hold the examination in respect of the failed subjects of the petitioners by permitting them to complete the course within time and also to declare their results.

(3.) BY following the judgment of the Division Bench, this Court in W.P.No.48031/2012 disposed of on 07.03.2013 in respect of some other students prosecuting their studies in the Five year Law course has issued a direction to the University, while permitting them to approach the University and make necessary representation enclosing the earlier decisions taken by the University in similar matters and the direction issued by this Court insofar as they were applicable to the petitioners, to consider the representation and take appropriate decision in accordance with law expeditiously. In the instant case, the petitioners have already made representation vide Annexure -A on 01.03.2013 seeking permission to write the backlog papers. This representation is not considered so far.