- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42803 WP No. 6143 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 6143 OF 2025 (EDN-RES) BETWEEN: MOHAMMED YASSEEN, S/O M.NAZEER AHMED, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: POLYTECHNIC LECTURER, H.M.S. GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE, TUMAKURU – 572 105, R/AT 2ND MAIN, 2ND CROSS, NRUPATUNGA EXTENSION, TUMAKURU – 572 102. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NATARAJ G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION, PALACE ROAD, SESHADRI ROAD , BENGALURU – 560 001. Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42803 WP No. 6143 of 2025 3. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION, PALACE ROAD, SESHADRI ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. 4. THE KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY, MUKTHA GANGOTHRI, MYSORE – 575 006, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 5. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION (AICTE), AN AUTONOMOUS ORGANISATION UNDER MINISTRY OF EDUCATION NELSON MANDELA MARG, VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI – 110 070, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. H.R.SHOWRI, ADVOCATE FOR R5; SRI. T.P.RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DTD 06.02.2025 BEING ISSUED BY THE R-3 VIDE ORDER NO. ¸ÀASÉå: rnE/12/¹r¹(2)/2025 (1654495) VIDE ANNX-J IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERN AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42803 WP No. 6143 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “a) Issue Writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the endorsement dated:-06-02-2025 being issued by the respondent No:-3 vide order No:- ¸ÀASÉå: rnE/12/¹r¹(2)/2025(1654495) vide Annexure –J insofar as petitioner is concern, in the interest of justice and equity. b) Issue Writ in the nature of mandamus by directing the respondent No:1 and 3 to recognise the M.Tech degree vide Annexure-C being done by the Petitioner and issue NOC for pursuating Ph.D. degree in an appropriate university in the interest of justice and equity. c) And to pass such other order or directions as deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3, learned counsel for respondent No.4-University and learned counsel for respondent No.5- All India Council For Technical Education (AICTE) and perused the material on record. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42803 WP No. 6143 of 2025 3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the impugned endorsement at Annexure-J dated 06.02.2025 in order to point out that the same is cryptic, laconic, non-speaking and unreasoned endorsement without assigning proper or cogent reasons as to why the request made by H.M.S. Polytechnic for issuance of NOC so as to enable the petitioner to pursue Ph.D degree has been rejected. In this context, it is submitted that except stating that the AICTE had intimated the respondent No.2 that the degree obtained by the petitioner had not been recognized, no other reasons are forthcoming in the impugned endorsement which is illegal, arbitrary and the same deserve to be quashed. It is also submitted that in so far as degree obtained by the petitioner from respondent No.4- University is concerned, the same did not require any approval from AICTE, as held by the Apex Court, this - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42803 WP No. 6143 of 2025 Court and the Central Administrative Tribunal in the following judgments: (1) KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS in W.P.No.34255/2016 (GM-RES) disposed on 27.06.2016. (2) Order passed in OA No.1011/2016 by the Central Administrative Tribunal at Chandigarh. (3) BHARATHIDASAN UNIVERSITY AND ANOTHER vs. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION AND OTHERS, (2001) 8 SCC 676. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned endorsement at Annexure-J dated 6.2.2025 deserves to be quashed and necessary directions be issued to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to issue an NOC in favour of the petitioner as sought for and the H.M.S. Polytechnic where he is working as a lecturer. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also invite my attention to the Notification dated 20.05.2020 issued by respondent No.5-AICTE and submit that the same was in favour of petitioner. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42803 WP No. 6143 of 2025 4. Per contra, learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned counsel for respondent No.5-AICTE would reiterate various contentions urged in the Statement of Objections and submit that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. In support of the submission of learned counsel for respondent No.5-AICTE, he relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORPORATION LIMITED vs. RABI SANKAR PATRO AND OTHERS AND CONNECTED MATTERS, (2018) 1 SCC 468. 5. Though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims, a perusal of the impugned endorsement at Annexure-J will indicate that except referring to the communication at Annexure-R2 dated 29.07.2024 issued by the AICTE to the respondent No.2, the aforesaid notification dated 20.05.2020 and the principles laid down in the judgment relied upon by both the sides have not been referred to by - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42803 WP No. 6143 of 2025 respondent No.2 while issuing the impugned endorsement which is a non-speaking, cryptic, laconic and unreasoned endorsement, which deserves to be set aside and the matter is remitted back to respondent No.2 for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law by giving an additional opportunity in favour of the petitioner and by leaving open all contentions. 6. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER [i] Petition is hereby allowed. [ii] Annexure-J dated 06.02.2025 is hereby set-aside. [iii] Matter is remitted back to respondent No.2 for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law. [iv] Petitioner shall appear before respondent No.2 on 17.11.2025 without awaiting further notice from respondent No.2. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42803 WP No. 6143 of 2025 [v] Liberty is reserved in favour of petitioner to submit pleadings, documents, notifications, judgments, etc., which shall be considered by respondent No.2 who shall provide sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and take appropriate decisions/pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of one month from 17.11.2025. [vi] Interim order passed by this Court which permitted the petitioner to pursue his Ph.D programme would continue to remain in force and operate between the parties till respondent No.2 passes appropriate orders as stated supra. [vii] All rival contentions and all aspects of the matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE CBC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7 CT:SS