SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 354819

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
SAP SCHOOL OF NURSING – Appellant
Versus
KARNATAKA STATE DIPLOMA IN NURSING EXAMINATION BOARD – Respondent
WP 37374/2025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

WRIT PETITION NO.37374 OF 2025 (EDN-EX)

BETWEEN:

1. SAP SCHOOL OF NURSING

# 63/2, ANDREHALLI ROAD

PEENYA 2ND STAGE

BANGALORE – 560 091 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL PARIMALA.

2. NIKAM TANHAVI KRUSHNA

D/O KRISHNA NIKAM

AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS.

3. MANI MEHALAI V

D/O VEERA MANI

AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.

4. NITISH KUMAR

S/O PRITHVI CHAND SAH

Digitally AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS.

signed by

MADHURI S 5. DANIEL GIDEON RAJ K.F

S/O KALISHTH RAJ F

Location: High

Court of AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.

Karnataka

6. FARGINA AKTAR

D/O RAMAJAN ALI

AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS.

7. RAJENDRA SAHU

S/O MAHADEV SAHU

AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.

8. BINA KUMARI

D/O GUPTHA RAM LOHARA

AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS.

9. KUSHI KUMARI D/O SATYAM SUNDAR AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS.

10. ABHIMANYU KUMAR SINGH S/O VISHNU PRASAD SINGH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.

11. ANITA DAS D/O SATYAJIT DAS AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS.

12. APARNA RAJ D/O JIYA RAM RAJ AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS. 13. BUPENDRA SINGH S/O HIMMAT SINGH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS.

14. SONIYA DAKAR D/O RAMESH CHANDRA DAKAR AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS.

15. PAYAL DAKAR D/O RAJESH KUMAR DAKAR AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS.

16. ANKIT DAKAR D/O GANSSYAM DAKAR AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS.

17. NEERAJ MEGHWANAHI S/O DINESH MEGHWANAHI AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS.

18. BADAL SEN S/O KAILASH SEN AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS.

19. ATSHYA SEN D/O RAVIKANT SEN AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS. 20. SONI KUMARI TELI D/O KAILASH CHANDRA RATHOR AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS.

21. RAM PRASAD DEKAR S/O GANPAT DEKAR AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS.

22. SANJAY S/O BHOJ RAJ GURJAR AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS.

23. SHUBHAM SAHU S/O SHANKAR LA SAHU AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS.

24. MAYA KUMARI DAKAR D/O SHAMBU LAL DAKAR AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS. 25. HIMESH CHOUBISA S/O GAJENDRA KUMAR CHOUBISA AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS. 26. VINODKUMAR BALAI S/O DALU RAM BALI AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS.

27. PRAKASH TELI S/O BERULAL TELI AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS.

28. CHANCHAL DHAKER D/O SATYANARAYANA DHAKER AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS.

29. ANIL MEENA S/O KAMLESH KUMAR MEENA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS.

30. SHARANYA SURENDRAN D/O M P SURENDRAN AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS. PETITIONERS 2 TO 3 ARE STUDENTS OF 1ST PETITIONER SCHOOL # 63/2, ANDREHALLI ROAD PEENYA 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 091.

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHIVARUDRA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. KARNATAKA STATE DIPLOMA IN NURSING EXAMINATION BOARD REP: ITS SECRETARY

1ST FLOOR, LIBRARY BLOCK BMC AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE CAMPUS BANGALORE – 560 002.

2. KARNATAKA STATE NURSING AND PARAMEDICAL EDUCATION (REGULATION) AUTHORITY REP: ITS SECRETARY

1ST FLOOR, LIBRARY BLOCK BMC AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE CAMPUS BANGALORE – 560 002.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUDARSHAN SURESH, ADVOCATE)

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT BOARD TO CONSIDER AND APPROVE THE ADMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER STUDENTS 2 TO 30 AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioners seek the following reliefs:

“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Board to consider and approve the admissions of the petitioner student No.2 to 30;

(ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Board to issue hall ticket by accepting the approval / examination fee and permit the petitioner students 2 to 3 to take up the 1st year GNM examination scheduled to commence from 29.12.2025 vide Annexure-D;

(iii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representations made by the 1st petitioner in the interest of the students vide Annexure-C;

(iv) Pass any order or issue any direction this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. After arguing the matter for sometime, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the respondent No.1 – Board has not considered the representation / request made by the petitioners vide Annexure-C dated 23.01.2025, the respondent No.1 may be directed to consider the same and take appropriate decision / pas

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top