Change of college: HC refuses to vacate stay

Change of college: HC refuses to vacate stay

The circular dated April 21, 2010 stated that the change of college from first year to second year PU can happen only in the case of transfer of parents while working or change of residence due to their retirement. It also said neither the parents nor the students can approach colleges for the changes directly at the institutions.

Syed Abdul Rehman, a resident of Srinivaspur in Kolar district and two others challenged the circular by way of a public interest litigation and a vacation bench had granted stay in the first week of May.

Terming the circular as disregardful of the needs of students, the petitioners had said that students seek change of college only when they realise that the institute they have joined does not cater to their requirements or requisite infrastructure is not available or in case of shortage of faculty.

The petitioners had termed the circular violative of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 and Karnataka Pre-University (Academic, Administration and Grant-in-aid etc) Rules, 2006. They had contended the Director of Pre-University Education has no authority to issue such circular.

Matter pending

They pointed out that a circular with similar content issued on April 21, 2009, has been challenged by some students before the Circuit bench at Dharwad and the matter is sub judice. The petitioners had sought to quash the circular and sought a stay as an interim relief. The Division Bench headed by Justice V G Sabhahit rejected the IA moved by the government seeking vacation of the stay.

Administrative general

The High Court has directed the State Government to consider the representation of a former court officer in connection with appointment of Administrative General for Advocates Association.

N M Karadigudda, a former court officer had moved the Court seeking directions to provide staff and infrastructure to the Administrative General (AG). He had contended that an AG has to attend to the clients coming from every corner of the State and his office was functioning once a week due to lack of infrastructure.

Representations to the Department of Law, Justice and Human Rights failed to yield any result, he had submitted. The division bench headed by Justice V G Sabhahit directed the State to consider the representation.