(BY SRI. C.R.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) v. SRI. B.M.ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
Judgment
BHAGYASHRI D/O. KARABASAPPA JAMBAGI AGE. 26 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
SUMA K.S. D/O. SHEKHARAPPA AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
BIBI AYESHA MUJAVAR AGE. 31 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
SHAGUPTA D/O. MOHAMMAD KATELI AGE. 25 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
SHRUTHI C.G. OCC. STUDENT,
DEEPIKA H.NAYAK AGE. 19 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
GEETA TALAVAR CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGHCOURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:17086 WP No. 105654 of 2025 HC-KAR AGE. 19 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
VINODA L.SUNAGARA AGE. 20 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
PUSHPA MATNAR AGE. 19 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
KAVYA C/ BHAGAVANTAGOUDAR AGE. 20 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
ZAIBABANU D/O. ANSARHMED HULAGERI AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
AFSANA BANU KHAZI D/O. MUSTAFA SAB @ AFSANA BANU HALAGERI, AGE. 25 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
UMARANI D/O. ASHOK PUJAR AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
NAYANA D/O. MARUTI NAIK AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
KAMALA TALAVAR AGE. 29 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
DIVYA D/O. SIDDANATH HIREMATH AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
NEELOOFAR D/O. RIYAXAHMED ANANTPUR AGE. 29 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
SUMA D/O. SURESH KOPPAD AGE. 26 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
YALLAMMA D/O. HONNAPPA HIMMATTI AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
PARVEENKOUSAR D/O. GOUSMODIN BALLARI AGE. 29 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:17086 WP No. 105654 of 2025 HC-KAR
KAVYA K.S. D/O. SAHADEVA B.K. AGE. 29 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
SHOBHA D/O. SHIVAPPA SOSARVI AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
SINCHANA D.S. D/O. SADASHIVAYYA AGE. 25 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
NAGAVENI M.G. D/O. GOPAL GOWDA AGE. 24 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
SHWETA D/O. NAGAPPA PORAPUR AGE. 26 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
AISHWARAYA M., AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
PRATIBHA BADIGER AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
NIKITHA D/O. RAJASHEKAR KALABURGI AGE. 24 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
MONASHREE B.C. D/O. MAHARUDRAPPA AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
FAREEDA D/O. NASIR AGE. 21 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, ALL THE PETITIONERS ARE C/O. M.K.E.T®, COLLEGE OF EDUCATION FOR WOMEN MRUTUNJAYA NAGAR, RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581115.
THE PRINCIPAL MUMBAI KARNATAKA EDUCATION TRUST (R), COLLEGE OF EDUCATION FOR WOMEN, RANEBENNUR BESIDE MRITYUNJA KALYANA MANTAP, P.B.ROAD, RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581115. (BY SRI. C.R.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:17086 WP No. 105654 of 2025 HC-KAR AND:
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, DR. B.R.AMBEDIKAR VIDHI, BENGALURU-560001.
THE VICE CHANCELLOR KARNATAKA STATE AKKAMAHADEVI WOMENS’S UNIVERSITY JNANASHAKTI CAMPUS, TORVI, VIJAYAPURA-586108.
THE REGISTER (EVALUATION) KARNATAKA STATE AKKAMAHADEVI WOMENS’S UNIVERSITY JNANASHAKTI CAMPUS, TORVI, VIJAYAPURA-586108.
Operative part
4. THE DIRECTOR UNIFIED UNIVERSITY AND COLLEGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (UUCMS) KSHEC BUILDING, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560009. (BY SRI. PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, AGA FOR R1 AND R4; SRI. B.M.ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH NOTIFICATION NO. KARAAMAVIVI/PA.VI/PA.KE.VI/2025-26/485, DATED 06.08.2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 UNIVERSITY THE COPY OF THE SAME IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:17086 WP No. 105654 of 2025 HC-KAR THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) Learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 - University on instructions would submit that the internal assessment of the petitioners submitted by the College is considered by the University and there is no impediment to declare the results of the petitioners. Submission is placed on record. Under the circumstances, respondents No.2 and 3 are directed to publish the results of the petitioners. The petition is disposed of. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 97
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.