w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



R.R. College of Management Studies and Computer Application v/s The Bangalore University & Others

    W. A. NO. 410 of 2009 & W.A. Nos. 889-892 of 09 (EDN-EX) A/w Misc. W. 2229 of 2009

    Decided On, 11 January 2011

    At, High Court of Karnataka

    By, THE HONORABLE MR. JUSTICE V.G. SABHAHIT & THE HONORABLE MR. JUSTICE B. MANOHAR

    For the Appellant: Chandrakanth R. Goulay, Advocate. For the Respondent: R1 - M.G. Javeed Ahmed Khan, R2 - V.Y. Kumar, R3 to R6 - V. Srinivas, Advocates, R7 Served.



Judgment Text

1. This appeal is by the first respondent in W.P.No. 186/08 wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 7.1.2009 has rejected the prayer of the petitioners seeking regularisation of their admission to MBA Course for the academic year 2007-08. However, directed the appellant herein to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to each of the petitioners therein towards compensation within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order and accordingly disposed of the writ petition.


2. The respondents 2 to 7 herein filed W.P.No. 186/08 averring that they were admitted to the college run by the appellant the study of Master of Business Administration Court for the academic year 2007-08 and they were issued the provisional admission letters as per Annexure ? ?A? to ?A4? dated 17.8.2007, 22.8.2007, 20.8.2007, 16.8.2007 and 27.8.2007 respectively. The appellant college is affiliated to the Bangalore University. The respondents 2 to 7 have produced bonafide certificates regarding their qualification for admission to the said Court. However, later it was disclosed that the appellant had taken students in excess of the quota fixed for admission to MBA Course under the management quota and thereafter the University refused to approve the admission of 16 students. Respondents 2 to 7 are five of among them. Wherefore they sought for their regularisation by conducting separate exams and in the alternative to pay compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs each of the respondents 2 to 7 from the appellant herein. However, during the course of arguments, since it was submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 7 herein that the fees that had been paid for admission had been refunded in the month of December 2007, the first prayer for regularisation of their admission to MBA Court was not pressed and the alternative prayer was for seeking damages / compensation of Rs. 5 Lakhs on the ground that they have lost one academic year. The petition was resisted by the appellant herein on the ground that the admission of the respondents 2 to 7 are not in excess and the that they have voluntarily taken back the original documents and the fees which they had paid and as such they are not entitled for grant of compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to each of the respondents 2 to 7. The learned Single Judge after considering the contention of the learned counsel for the parties and scrutinizing the material on record rejected the first prayer as per the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and further ordered that the appellant herein shall pay Rs. 25,000/- to each of the respondents 2 to 7 herein as compensation within a period of two months form the date of receipt of certified copy of the said order.


3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.


4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge having considered the submission of the writ petitioners that they have been refunded the fees which they had paid at the time of admission and returned the original documents submitted, the compensation could not have been awarded. Further, they have not lost any academic year and as such the compensation should not have been awarded and even otherwise the compensation awarded is excessive.


5. We have given careful consideration to the contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellants and scrutinized the material on record, the material on record would clearly show that respondents 2 to 7 herein were admitted to the course of MBA for the academic year 2007-08 and were issued provisional admission letters in the month of August 2007. However, later it was revealed that the appellant herein had admitted 16 students in excess of the quota and therefore, their admission was not approved by the University by order dated 29.12.2007, which included the writ petitioners. However, though the writ petitioners sought for regularisation of admission, the said prayer was not pressed since they were refunded the fees and the original documents were returned in the month of December 2007. However, the material on record would clearly show that the order of the University was passed on 29.12.2007 disapproving the admission of the writ petitioners and others and the fees and original documents were returned in the month of December 2007 and therefore, it is open to the appellant to contend that the writ petitioners have not lost one academic year. No material is produced to show that they have been admitted to any other college for the academic year 2007-08. Wherefore awarding of compensation of Rs.25,000/- is just and reasonable.


6. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it is clear that though the petitioners have sough for compensation of Rs. Five Lakhs, the learned Single Judge has proceeded to award compensation of Rs. 25,000/- t

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

o each of the writ petitioners. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, the writ petitioners have lost one academic year in their career. Therefore the compensation of Rs. 25,000/- awarded cannot be said to be excessive, Accordingly, we do not find any error or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge so as to call for interference in this intra Court appeal. 7. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. 8. Since the appeals are dismissed, Misc. W. Nos. 2229/09 for stay is also dismissed.
O R