MR. ROCHAN N. SHANKAR, vs RV UNIVERSITY,
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61357
WP No. 32497 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010718702026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 4 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION NO. 32497 OF 2026 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. MR. ROCHAN N. SHANKAR,
S/O P SHIVASHANKAR MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 364, 3RD STAGE,
2ND BLOCK, BASAVESHWARANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 079,
PRESENTLY PURSUING B.A. LL.B. (HONS.)
AT THE SCHOOL OF LAW
RV UNIVERSITY, BENGALURU,
BEARING USN 1RUA25BAL0035.
… PETITIONER
Digitally
signed by
PRAKASH N
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. VENKATESH S ARBATTI., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RV UNIVERSITY,
PRIVATE UNIVERSITY ESTABLISHED
UNDER THE R.V. UNIVERSITY ACT, 2019,
HAVING ITS CAMPUS AT RV VIDYANIKETAN,
8TH MILE, MYSURU ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 059,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61357
WP No. 32497 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010718702026
2. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR,
RV UNIVERSITY, RV VIDYANIKETAN,
8TH MILE, MYSURU ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 059.
3.
THE REGISTRAR,
RV UNIVERSITY, RV VIDYANIKETAN,
8TH MILE, MYSURU ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 059.
4. THE DEAN
SCHOOL OF LAW, RV UNIVERSITY,
BENGALURU - 560 059.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASHING THE DECISION/SPREADSHEET/LIST TO THE
EXTENT IT RECORDS OR CONTINUES THE PETITIONER AS
"NOT PROMOTED" (ANNEXURE-B) ISSUED BY
RESPONDENT NO.1, IF THIS HON'BLE COURT FINDS THAT
THE SAME WAS MADE WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE
SUBSEQUENT EXAMINATION RESULTS OR BY AN
ARBITRARY OR INCONSISTENT APPLICATION OF THE
PROGRESSION POLICY VERSION 3.0 (ANNEXURE-D) AND
ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE
THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61357
WP No. 32497 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010718702026
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is a student of B.A.LLB. (Hons.)
programme conducted by the School of Law,
RV University, Bengaluru, and has sought to quash the
decision/spreadsheet/list to the extent it records or
continues the petitioner as "Not Promoted" at Annexure-B.
Certain other allied reliefs are also sought for.
2. The facts made out are that the petitioner during
his course in the First year had five backlog subjects in
First Semester in terms of Annexure-A and during Second
Semester, he was unable to attend the classes due to
ailment of his mother. It is made out from the facts that
the respondent University had by virtue of Annexure-C
dated 01.09.2026 extended one-time special examination
opportunity to students on account of credit backlog.
3. It is further submitted that the petitioner has
availed all such opportunity and consequent to such
examination, has earned 36 Credits as reflected in the
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61357
WP No. 32497 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010718702026
Provisional Grade Card dated 08.10.2026. It is submitted
that despite petitioner having obtained credits of 36, the
respondent University has directed his detention in the
same academic year.
4. It is the case made out by the petitioner that
prior to 01.09.2026, the University in terms of
Annexure-R1 dated 19.08.2026 framed a policy as
one-time measure wherein the number of credits required
for progressing to the next Semester was reduced to 36.
It is the contention of the petitioner that benefit of
Annexure-R1 which was about 11 days prior to
Annexure-C requires to be extended to the petitioner as
well, and that would serve the interest of students taking
note of the intention to extend the relief of progression as
a one time measure to students in an appropriate manner.
5. Learned Counsel Sri.Somashekar appearing for
the respondent University while does not controvert the
factual assertion of the petitioner, has however contended
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61357
WP No. 32497 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010718702026
that the benefit of Annexure-C is to be strictly construed
and petitioner not having cleared entirety of the shortfall,
even after the opportunity in terms of Annexure-C would
not be entitled for relaxation in the credit requirements by
falling back on Annexure-R1, as Annexure-C had clearly
specified that no credit requirement was waived and only
an additional attempt that was being made available. It
is further contended that undertaking was given by the
petitioner pursuant to the opportunity at Annexure-C and
petitioner is bound by the same.
6. After having heard both sides, the only question
that would fall for consideration is:
"whether the student upon attempting to
avail one-time benefit in terms of Annexure-C,
is entitled for further relaxation of credits in
terms of Annexure-R1?"
7. It is no doubt true that Annexure-C dated
01.09.2026 was introduced as a one time measure and in
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61357
WP No. 32497 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010718702026
terms of which, those students who were outside the
purview of the policy at Annexure-R1 were extended
certain benefits. The policy at Annexure-C is dated
01.09.2026, which was subsequent to the policy at
Annexure-R1 is dated 19.08.2026.
8. The applicability of relaxation policy at
Annexure-R1 was only insofar as such of students who had
shortfall of four credits i.e., those who have credits
between 36 to 40. Insofar as such of the students who
had lesser credits, Annexure-C was inapplicable. By virtue
of the policy at Annexure-R1, those students who had
credits between 36 to 40, they were promoted to the next
year without any further taking up of examination, as a
one time relaxation. Insofar as other students are
concerned who had credits lesser than 36, as the benefit
of Annexure-R1 was not applicable to such of the students,
one time measure by way of policy at Annexure-C was
sought to be extended. In terms of the said policy, the
petitioner attempted the examination and improved his
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61357
WP No. 32497 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010718702026
academic performance. However, in terms of the credits
available, his credit stood at 36 even after the additional
attempt at Annexure-C.
9. In terms of Annexure-C, it was contended by
Sri.Somashekar, learned counsel appearing for the
University that there was no provision for waiver of credit
requirement and if that were to be so, petitioner were to
obtain 40 credits in order to be promoted for the next
Academic Year.
10. After having carefully perused Annexure-R1 as
well as policy at Annexure-C, it is made out that
Annexure-R1 relates to those students whose credits was
between 36 to 40 who would be entitled to progress in
terms of Exhibit R1 as a one-time relaxation. Insofar as
Annexure-C, no doubt the policy stipulates that the
student is required to have the credits required under
normal circumstance for the purpose of progression.
However, what could not be lost sight of was Annexure-R1
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61357
WP No. 32497 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010718702026
was dated 19.08.2026 while Annexure-C was dated
01.09.2026. Both Annexure-R1 and Annexure-C relate to
the same year. The policy at Annexure-C being availed by
the petitioner and after having availed of such opportunity,
the petitioner's credit stands at 36.
11. No doubt the University has contended that in
light of absence of relaxation of credit, the credits standing
at 36 would not enable the petitioner for further
progression. However, looking into the objective of
affording one-time opportunity in terms of Annexure-R1,
which was about 11 days prior to Annexure-C, once the
petitioner had availed Annexure-C, the extension of
benefit of Annexure-R1 would result in an harmonious
interpretation of Annexure-R1 and Annexure-C. The
benefit extended to students under Annexure-R1 also
requires to be extended to those who have attempted the
examination as per opportunity under Annexure-C.
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61357
WP No. 32497 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010718702026
12. It is also noticed that the relaxation at
Annexure-R1 was only for the particular year. Similarly,
insofar as such of the students who fell outside the
purview of Annexure-R1 of the same year, the benefit at
Annexure-C was offered. If that were to be so,
Annexure-C and Annexure-R1 being limited only to the
particular batch in question, the extension of benefit of
Annexure-R1 even to those who had attempted the
one-time examination at Annexure-C would be a beneficial
harmonization of the policy of one-time opportunity at
Annexure-C and Annexure-R1. Such interpretation is
taken, taking note that Annexure-R1 and Annexure-C are
particular to the present year alone and hence could not
be used as a precedent for students other than those to
whom Annexure-R1 and Annexure-C is applicable.
Accordingly, the respondent to extend the benefit of
Annexure-R1 to the petitioner as well.
13. Insofar as the issue of attendance is concerned,
learned counsel appearing to the University has relied on
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61357
WP No. 32497 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010718702026
the lack of attendance stating that the III semester had
commenced on 03.08.2026 and concludes on 20.11.2026.
No doubt the petition itself was filed on 14.10.2026.
However, where the schemes are offered as a one-time
measure, interpretation of which was open till this court
has passed an order on this day as the court is passing an
order in favour of extending benefit to the student, the
benefit granted by allowing the writ petition cannot be
restricted as an illusory relief.
14. As matter was pending before this court and
has taken time till the court has decided, it would be
appropriate in the peculiar facts of this case that
University advise appropriate measure so as not to
prejudice the petitioner in continuing his III Semester only
on the ground of attendance. It is open for the University
either to direct the petitioner to take extra Classes or
extra assignments and any costs incurred in this regard is
required to be borne by the student so as to make good
lack of attendance. The manner of implementation of such
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61357
WP No. 32497 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010718702026
arrangement is left open to the University while
emphasising that admission to III Semester is not to be
defeated.
15. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of in
terms of the above observations. The petitioner is
permitted to resume classes for the III Semester
forthwith. As regards the attendance, the University is at
liberty to devise appropriate manner so as not to prejudice
the petitioner in continuing his III Semester only on the
ground of attendance. All contentions are kept open.
Sd/-
(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
JUDGE
NP