KALAVATHY A KATTI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) IN paragraph 2 of the statement of objections, the respondents have sought to justify the impugned endorsement.

(3.) 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.