Karnataka High Court
Mr.Aiman Ahamed Khan vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 September, 2009
Equivalent citations: 2010 (1) AIR KAR R 604, AIR 2010 (NOC) (SUPP) 604 (KAR.)
Author: K.Bhakthavatsala
Bench: K.Bhakthavatsala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE I
DATED :29*** DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2009
PRESENT *
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE V. GOPALA Go\'a.rpA,j;.. 5'
AND
I-IOIWBLE Dr. JUSTICE K. B.'IIm'.?I*AJvA*rsAA' M A. "
WRIT PETITION Nos.22 1929222193/T2669 5(EI:3N)
22382, 22386-395,. 2:23t96 8: "2_2406-410.
22413, 22915, 234927~A49¢;.vL'i_;_;2_§§§1:;_S,);§,__223647-
23656, 22531, 22626-634,j22635+641,
23160 2359a@,_:;;2H§;395~=596, '244L4.6, 24656-57,
24672. 24232354; 253--T?1~," 25664, 25607.
24884&i26918/'2'0O9!_- I I I I
IN w.I=.No.2.2'1624422203/32669"Qt .
BETWEEN:
1.
MR. AIMAN IQIAN7
S/O_IDI?._SHAMSP_IAD' A. KHAN,
AGED 17' YEARS, «
--. R/'AT. I~3'LAT"'1\JQ.4.O6, ORCHARD APARTMENTS,
. ARYA SAMAJ ROAD, BALMATA,
_ I*J"IA_N'GAI';QRE¥5750OI.
"M1NQR"'£~5:pREsENTED BY
NA:mRAL.GU_ARD1AN
DR:«sHA.:\AsHAD A. KHAN.
Ms. sI?1Ia:E;A_ ABOOTY.
., D MR.M.C.ABOO'I'Y.
.A{'_;EI3 18 YEARS.
_ 'R/AI. C/O.DR. SHAMSI ABDUL HAMEED.
ASST. PROFESSOR. DEPT. OF ORTHOPAEDIC.
"'-SURGERY' KASTURBA MEDICAL COLLEGE.
MAN1PAL~576104.
MINOR REPRESENTED BY
\\v
NATURAL GUARDIAN
MR. M.C. ABOOTY.
MRBALPREET SINGH JULKA,
S/O. MR. GURMAN SINGH JULKA,
AGED 18 YEARS.
NO.180,B/12, GALI No.5.
OPP. SHIV MANDIR.
KRISHNA COLONY.
GURGAON, HARYANA422001. - -
MINOR REPRESENTED BY 1
NATURAL GUARDIAN
MR. GURMAN SINGH JULKA. _
MR. DEEPAK SHANBHAG, K
S/O. MR. DAYANANDA M. SHANBROGDE,
AGED 18 YEARS, .
R/AT. 504, DIVYA ~
MARKETROAD. '
KARANGALPADY, .
MANGALORE575003. --
MINOR REPRESENTED BY 3. _
NATURAL GUARDJIXN _ 3
MR. DAYA:s3AND.A 'M;3'$HAd\?E3HOG'I_IE'..V '
MS. V1.DUSHA'AvIJA*y,V'. _ .
D/O DR.P. VIJAY KUMAR, _ *
AGED18 '
R/AT. 320 CROSS, OEP. .. '
MARUTHITHEATER, ; =
RAJGOPAL N.AGAR,; '
PEENYA. 11 STAGE,
BAfNGA1,ORE~56005S--..--« *
" M1NOR"REPRESEN*rED BY
' NATURAL~GUAR_DLAN
DRP.' xz1q:Ay'
MR."%SAGR:Nf;RA NAYAK,
S/O. MR. SURENDRA NAYAK,
AGED 1S:.yEARs,
= _' RJAT. 502, MEIDHA APMTMENTS.
GEORGE MARTIS ROAD.
MA;I,L1KA'I'IE, KADRI,
lg/IANGALORE+5'75002.
MINOR REPRESENTED BY
NATURAL GUARDIAN
MR. SURENDRA NAYAK.
\\w/
12.
MINOR REPRESENTED BY
NATURAL GUARDIAN
MR. JOHN VARGI-IESE.
MR. PAREEKSI-IITH R
8/0. MRRAGHUPAL G
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS.
R/AT. NEELANJARA,
D.NO.3W--29~2360(l)
OPP. NATHAJI COMBINED SCI-IOOLP ~
MAUJKATTE,
MANGALORE--575Oo3.
MINOR REPRESENTED BY
NATURAL GUARDIAN
MR. RAGI-IUPAL G.
{BY UDAYA HOLLA FOR M/S'HOI;EA' HOLL«}\,V"'Ai)VVS.]
AND:
1.
STATE OF KARNATAKA. - '
DEPARTMENT 01;? MEDICAI, EDLR':ATION.;-- ..
VTKASA sOUDI~1A,_ .1 jjp
DR. AMBEDKAR 'VEEDIEROADO, ' V. '
BANGALORE-5500.01' ' . I.
REP. BY ITS---SECRTETAPN., ''
KARNATAKA ExAM1NzI<.I:ON 'ADTI--IORITY,
BANGALORE'~560003'.' A 'V
REP. BY SPECIAL OFFICER.
-V .NITTF._: ii=':NI:V;EI3.SITY,AA ~ ..... I -
DERALAI{A'ITA",
HMANG-ALORE-I 575018.
REP.__m* ITS»--REGISj1iRAR.
UNIVE_RsI'IY.GRI¢.NTS COMMISSION,
_I3AHAE}URv~SHAH ZAEER MARG,
NEW DELI-II;
ivIED1'CAI. COUNSIL OF INDIA.
AL4§Vv'NAN E GALIB
. KOTLA ROAD,
DELHI.
... RESPONDEINTS
{BY ASHOK HARANAHALLI AG 8: MANOHAR AGA
"W
PE'1ITfIONI~:=RS'1v;
FOR R1 SR1. N.K. RAMESH. ADV. FOR R2
SR1. M.V. SEESHACHALA, ADV. FOR R3
SR1. RS. DINESH KUMAR, ADV. FOR R4
SR1. KHETTY. ADV. FOR R5
KEESHAV BHAT FOR IMPI.EADII\IO APPI.ECANT] ~_' --.
THIS WRIT PI:3Ti'I'ION IS FILED UNDER AR'IIcLE"2é6vOR*1IIE --
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLA_FcE'v--..TI'1A'1T..
ALLOTMENT OF 24 SEATS BY THE R2 'I'O~-"i'HE.R3 '_INS'f'I_'FI'J'IION-EN
MBBS COURSE FOR THE ACADEMIC 20Q9¢2_;01'O. ' _ 3
IN WP NO 22382 OF 2009 A A A
BETWEEN
1 ATHRIYA VISHWANATH
D/O VISHWANATH PA}; «
AGED ABOUT17 , .
R/ATVISHWASHREEE. I
H.NO 6»2~11494M.OPP FISH I "
SUNANDA DEVADAS '1'OwERS..,' .,
PPC ROAD, UDUP1IZ" _ _ ' V .
REP. BYHERFAf1'H~ER _ ._ _
AND NAIURAL--:fiOLI_ARDI.rII§I ._ 5.
VTSHWA1\I.AT_'H~.PAI§"1iI;:, PETITIONER
[By .;--.IAYAI{U \4VI3'IA.__'f1'3f,__OASSOCLl\'I'ES 8:
DEVIPRASAD SH.E'{'.!TSf.-- AD._VS.)"
1»-1' = NIGTE U.NIVTERS1'l'Y; I H ---------- ~ "
" '' {DEEMED UNIVERSITY'), UNIVERSITY ROAD,
' DERALAKAITIE,' MANGALORE
.. REP, BY, HTS RE:GI~STRAR,
575018 ' "* 3
2 . K.ST"IIEG.DE 'Ii/IEDICAJ. ACADEMY,
DERALAKLATTE, MANGALORE.
BYITS PRINCIPAL.
3 _ O' '.I<:Am:A'rAI{A EXAMINATIONS AIITIIORITY.
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA.
.. WSAMPIGE ROAD, 18TH CROSS.
MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE.
BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.
\/
6
4 ONE MAN REGULATORY COMMFITEE
TO OVERSEE THE
ADMISSION TO PROFESSIONAL COURSES AND
IMPLEMENTATION OR THE CONSENSUAL
ARRANGEMENTS/AGREEMENTS.
K.E.A PREMISES, ISTH CROSS,
MALI.ESPIwARAM
BANGALORE5600} 2
5 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTII
AND FAMILY WELFARE
{MEDICAL EDUCATION}, VIRASA SOUDHA;
BANGALORE, BY ITS SEC REI'IARF... '
500001
6 THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION,
ANANDARAO CIRCLE, « A . 'I
BANGALORE--560009
7 RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY 'OF HEALTH -SCIENCE
JAYANAGARI7Y":"BI..OCI{. 2: A '
EANOALOm ~
REF. BY ITS 'I I ;
8 THE MED'ICAI';j;COU§NCIL-- OF INDIA" '
AIWAN~E--GALIEs_--v - . _'
KOTLA~.ROAIZ'J; OPRO.SITE M_.A'I'A SUNDARI.
NEW DELHI. BY' ITS .SECRE'mRY.
110002 " ' 2
B£IL_H1%IZ§_U_R J MARG
' NEW DELHI 110002.
' }3Y'SECvR}E;TARY. .. RESPONDENTS.
9. UNR/*ERSI'IY G"I%ANTS COIYIIVIISSION '~,I_By.SrI VIJAIYAISPLANKAR, ADV. FOR R1 SI3{I..~P«.?.I{.'IT<A1\/IESH. ADV. FOR R2 & R3 'ASHOII; HARANAHALLI AG & MANOHAR AGA FORR5 <31 R6
2. SRI'."N.KE~IE'1TY, ADV. FOR R8 '*SRI.P.S.DINESH KUMAR, ADV. FOR R9 I vI)g.P. FILED PRAYING TO ~ DIRECT THE R2 COLLEGE TO ADMIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE COURSE OF IST YEAR MBBS FOR THE ACADEMIC YER 2009-10 IN WPURSUANCE OR THE ADMISSION ORDER DTD 24.07.09 ISSUED BY \\~/ M/S. RAMSEENA P.U. D/O. UM/MER RM.
AGE 18 YEARS.
PUVARAKAYIL {H} PALAPETTY [P.O.} VELIANCODE (VIA) PONNANI, MALAPPURAM, KERAI.A--679 5'79.
MR.A.MOHAMMED SHAWAD S/O. AREHMAN.
AGE 18 YEARS, C / O. KABROS, KOTIKULAM, P.O.BEKAL, KERALA4371 318.
MS. YASHVANT1 K. PAT£%:L..A D/O. KAMLESH K. PATEL! ._ 3 AGE 18 YEARS, BHAGVATE ROAD. ' VIDYARANYA _NAGAR, ULLAL, i . . '- MANGALo;"<h:."' .- MS. ZEBA NQ'eQRUf}I'IEEN AGE18 v '*MU:\/f£'HAz*'V ' CALTEX, ' KANNUR-"2, " KERALA. "
Ix/£R:':\fISHr~;%U v.1{." ' ---------- ~ "
«S/O V'_K_ ' ;AG--E1"84YEARS,----_ 8-. BLUE; «VMQCJVN - . V =Q1=9; THEATRIE3, CANNA?€O_Ri3.é670 001.
MR. SHERIFF N.M. AAA[(7}_E18"YEARS, NEELIMAVUNGAL {H} EM-H;Y K-ALPETTA {R0,} gwAYANA1)~67:3 121.
PETITIONERS (BY R N NARASIMHA MURTHY SENIOR COUNSEL FOR LAW ASSOCIATES 81 L.K. SRINIVASAMURTHY 82 S.SHIVANAND, ADVS.) AND:
1.
. REPRE'sEm'EI3'"BY ITS SECRETARY. STAT E OF KARNATAKA.
DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, VIKASA SOUDHA.
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI ROAD.
BANGALORE--56O 001.
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
KARNATAKA EXAMINATION ,AUTI+IOR~I:I'Y, MALLESWARAM, BANGALORE-560 003.
REP. BY SPECIAL OFFICER';
YENEPOYA UNIVERSITY.
DERALAKATTA, MANGALORE-575 018.__ .
REP. BY ITS REGIS'IRA.R. UNIVERSITY c:RAm:s"COMMIs- A 'ON_(--U(£1C}; BAHADUR 43*-AI7?ER MAR(};-- ~ 3 NEW DEL.Hl'¢'1 Io'I302.'*;:.; "
BY ITS SLECRETARI-7 MEDICAL COUNCIL .OP'..1'E'J.DIA_, «. POCKET--14,'SECTOR-8, 1 = "
DWARAKA PHASEQI. _ "
NEW DELHI- I 10 07?, * BY I'D} 'SECRETARY. ' ---------- -« *
7.U'1*€1O'N .OF.,II\i'I):I:A.' ' .._ MINISTIWOII HIJNLAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DE£>AI'~¥I'MENfI'L'OFt= HIGHER EDUCATION NEW DELHI. ' RESPONDEN'IS (BY ASHOK HARANAHALLI AG 81 MANOHAR AGA 2 FOR R1 SR1. M. ALESHWAR GOUD, ADV. FOR R3 SR1. RS. DINESH K MAR, V. FOR R4 SR1. N. KHETIY, AD R5} THIS VJRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ALLOTMENT OF 24 SEATS BY THE R2 '90 THE R3 INSTITUTIOI'I_ IN MBBS COURSE FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 20092010. r IN 'WP NO. 22396 OF 2009 8: WP 22406-22410/2009 BETWEEN I FATI~:{IMA.T.V D/O NAZARUDHEEN M T M.'F.I-IOUSE, KOTFIKKADU PONNAIPOST PONNAI MALAPURRAM, KERALA 679 577 SAFEERA BDULLA D /0, K¥J_NNH;ABDUL:.A A': K KAKKUZI-HYULLA PARAMBATH 'I-IO;USE"v-- j ' * NARIKKOTUMCHAL KARANB_ODE.P"GST__ KUTFIADY VIA KozH1K0DE_ A ' "
KERALA 673 5035 ' SAJEERA BA.DL.ILI;A_D/O _KUN.NHAEsIJI.,LA. T K KAKKUZHIYULLA. PARAMBALIH 'HQCUSE, NARIKKOTUMCHA{L,KA;2A1\IBoDE_ POSfT KUTTIAIZJYVIA"§§ozHI:H:oD.E'*- ' KERALA 673 508;
ROYSTEN 'GLEN ROD-RiGUEs"« s/0 GEoRGE?.QD';;1Gm2:s JACINTHA ROD_RiGUES FLA'.I§NO:.1()1, MILAGRESE CASTLE _ BA:;MA1jfrA RAOD, 1v V"----'N-'GALORE 575 001 .0 A1i"REErvI_AA4EIiR 9/0 S 1 AMEERUDDINA ' ...Ur~1_I-Qur...Vv1L1A":§A3>1KKAD em CROSS 1\9IANGAI..OR£:..5'?5 004 MUiisHII§f~{A"i> D /0 MUHAMMED P I ' ,_PULLA''I'}~IOUISE KANNAMANGALAM POST «_ MEMA'I'1"URARA VENAGARA »._*MVAL'APPURAM, KERALA 676 318
-- SALEENA K P D/O ABDUL REHIMAN K P POST PULIYANAIVIBRUM VIA PERINGATHOOR I' 'THALESSERY CANNANNORE DISTRICT KERALA 670675 \I«/
14.
" = _ S/Q'ABDAUL_I,ATHE'EF**' "
' "BAETHULI,A QKADLAUNDY POST ' ':\AAV.AY'OOR>'P»/EALAPPURAM I0 11 12 13 MUHSIN MUNDODDAN S/O MOHAMEMD M VELLIYANKOLIL HOUSE OZHUKUNU POST, MORGAM VIA. MALAPPURAM KERALA 673 642 ASIF P P S/O MOOSSA CHALIL (HO) VLAYAM {PO} CALICUT. KERALA 673 517 SANAH K B D /0 K A MOHAMMED BASHEER I SPIAHALA COTFAGE BANGOD _ ' "
POT HALANGARA KASARAGOD (DISTRIC'£' ~ ' KERALA 671 122 V RISWANA P P 1)/0 ABDULLA P PUTHIYAPURIYEL HOUSE " _ .
POSTKADAVATHOOR _ THALESSERY KANNUR DISTRICT "
KERALA67O 675 --. '--
SHRIEEN SHAMSLTDDEEN « D/O sHAMsUm*:«}:+;EjN I ' SHIREEN SHALMSIJDDEEPJ SHAS ONDEN PARAME3 KANNUR " _ "
ASWA'f_'HI EAR M % P' NAMBIAR "KAUS"FHU'BI~iEAM"' KANKQLTVTPO _ PAYYANUR FANNUR .{13.IsT_131C*I') KERALA 670' 33,7 ' ABDUL ._t;ATHEEF YASHJ K, 71? K T ABDULLA K T HOUSE,' IQBAL ROAD, ' V POST KALAVAYAL.
"V E€l¥£\_IHAGAD KASARAGOD '~ « . " KERALA PETITIONERS Sri D-N-NANJ UNDA REDDY SENIOR COUNSEL FOR \~/ .. _,,_REUBEN JACOB. ADV.) W YENEPOYA UNIVERSITY (A DEEMED UNIVERSITY} UNIVERSITY ROAD.
DERALAKATFE 1\/LANGALORE 575 018.
BY ITS REGISTRAR.
YENEPOYA MEDICAL COLLEGE ._ UNIVERSITY ROAD, DERALAKATTE MANOALORE 575 019, BY ITS PRINCIPAL 2 STATE OF' KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE {MEDICAL ED.UCATIQI\I} _ "_ VIKASA SOUDHA. BANGALORE 560 001, BY ITS SECRETARY. ~ 1, ; .
KARNATAKA ExA}.41NAT:Orav».ADTHOR1TY I " "
(GOVERNMENT OF RARNATARA( CET.jCE1.L j' 18TH CROSS _ ' BANGALOR.-E'1'2.. BYIIS E;<.ECUfHvE._' ' DIRECTOR; _ --:' * " A UNION OFINDEA , . .
MINISTRY OF HU1'¢LANARE;SQU_RCES DEVELOPMENT {DEPARTMENT OF'IvIl'GH'EZR"'EDUCATION} SHASTR1 SHAVAN-NEW DELHI BY ITS SECRETARY-._ ' ' ' UNRIERSITY GRANTS__COMMISSION {UGCL ' - BAHADUR JAFER MARC, . NEW DELHEJ3-0_ 002.
___ BY_I'1"S _SE;_CRE'1'fA_RY. RIEDIICAE Cޤ:;I{iS1L OF INDIA, POCRETg 1 4-,. SECTOR-8, DWARKA?1~IASE~1, "NEW DELHL110 077.
BY SECRETARY.
... RESPONDENTS
-- I"-{Ey"Sn MsMAI--IABALESHWAR GOUD, ADV. FOR R1 & R2 ASHOK HARANAHALLI AG & MANOHAR AGA FOR R3 SRI.N.K.RAMESH. ADV. FOR R4 SRI.P_S.DINESH KUMAR, ADV. FOR R6 SRI.N.KHI':E'I'IY, ADV. FOR R7] 'V THIS W.P. FILED PRAYING TO -
DIRECT THE R1 UNIVERSITY AND R2 COLLEGE NOT DISTURB/DISPLACE THE PETITIONERS ADMISSION Ai\¥DWNO'I"'TO. CANCEL THE ADMISSION OF THE PE'FIT'IONERS' I_NTO~ RESPONDENT No.2 COLLEGE) FOR IST YEAR MESS "DEGREE. ' COURSE). WHICH ADMISSIONS ARE MADE AS RER...A__DM1SSION "
LETTERS DATED 28.07.09 VIDE ANNEXS F1.:'iU--I4T15 TO i"-V.P.. IN WP NO 22413 OF 2009 BETWEEN 1 AND:
YENEPOYA UNIVERSITY _ {A DEEMED UNIVERSITM V V a UNIVERSITY ROAD, DERALARA*r_rE:. MANGALORE. 5?5018 '- 5 ' _ REP. BY ITS REC_IST_RARy"' " " RETITIONER {By Sri M R NAIR SENIOR ADVOCA'IE FOR"
M MAI"1ABALESHW1'I.R,GQ'UVLD',--A3)V";}_ ' GOVERN'1\{IE'NT OE KARNA';I;AEA' RERRESENTEIDVVEY ITS. SECRE"['ARY DEPARTMENT OE HEALTH"'& FAMILY WELFARE {MEDICAL EDUCATION), VIKASA SOUDHA ' _ EALNGALORIE M56008? * ' RARNATAEA-.EXAMINA'1ION AUTHORITY A *- {<}.CV'I .- KARNATAKA), CET CELL 8TH CROSS, E3/I1kl.LEJSHWARA1\/E, BANGALORE REI=jRESEN'1jED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 5600012 ' _' 'GQVEEENMENT OF INDIA ' MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEIVELOPMENT ' _{DEi3AR'FMEN'I' OF EDUCATION] SHASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI RESPONDENTS V jg} [By ASHOK HARANAHALLI AG 82. MANOHAR AGA FOR R1 SRI.N.K.RAMESH, ADV. FOR R2, SRI.P.S.DINESH KUMAR. ADV. FOR R4, SRI.N.KHET'IY. ADV. FOR R5 ) THIS VVP FILED PRAYING TO::~ QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTIF'ICA'1'ION D'r.20.7.oS IN SO;'EAR..AS_ IE-._. . NOTIEIES THE PE'ImONER UNIVERSITYS CONS'['ITUT_ENTAA,UNI'1'~ YENEPOYA MEDICAL COLLEGE, MANGALORE IN THE..S,EATV1\/F.-A'1"RIX "
FOR ALLOCATION OF SEATS NOTIFYTNG 25»~SEATS:OE 'INTAI_{E AS GOVT. QUOTA SEATS AS PER AN NAF. DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NOT :S.ELECT';y_ at 'SEND. '' CANDIDATES FOR BEING AD1\aI'I'rED«--..TO MEDICAL &.; DENTAL COURSES PURSUANT TO ANNF COL_'1_--,EGES"' OE PETITIONER UNIVERSITY & TO RECALLEI RE-ALLOCATE TO SOME OTHER COLLEGE IF SUCH AN ,ADMISSI--ON"IS AI,READY'C--RA;1\ITED. IN WP NO 22915 OF 2009 BETWEEN 1 MRABDUL AZEEM S/O M A MOIDEENfi__I<;UNH'I' ' AGED ABOUT. 18' ZULAIKA COTrAG.E._ KEERTHES-WAR, , " I MANJESHVVARPOST KASARGOD--671323 PETITIONER (By Sr; K-S~B.FIARA',['H KUIVIAR, ADV.) 1 'GOVERNM'_EN'I"~OE KARNATAKA A REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MEDICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT V1DHANA~_SOUDHA ' BANGALORE --550001 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR « KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY SAMPIGE ROAD, 18'?" CROSS " -MALLESWARAM, BANGALORE.
\w/ 3 NITTE UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR DERALAKATFE, MANGALOREI6750 I8 4 K S HEGDE MEDICAL ACADEMY.
DERALAKATTE. MANGALORE.
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL.
IVIANGALORE 5 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER I S DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT " ' MANOALORE.
6 UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION {UGC) " ._ ' NEW DELHI "_ "
REP BY ITS SECRETARY. I 7 MEDICAL COUNCIL OF' INDI'A~II_v1CI_I'I""' "
NEW DELHI I _ -_ g I 'I REP BY ITS SECRETARY ;';v."RESBON_DE1VfIS (BY SRI. ASHOK IIA.RANAé:ALI;i':AhO a§»MANOI}IAR AGA FOR R: as: R5; ' 1» I ' N K RAMESH I".«.'OR;jR2 ~ M V SESIIACI--IALA"I<*O.R R3'j*.&"R4 I P S D:_NESI~_I.I<*O--R' _ FOR GASD.]"u ' ' ' "
THIS WP FILED PRAYINOV 61:05; I QIIASH ;I.MPUGNED*- ..... ENDORSEMENT DT:27-7-2009. NO.NV,/REG/GSEEXZQQQMIO, ISSUED BYTHE NIITE UNIVERSITY RERRERSENTED'£3§('<vI'FS..REGIS'I'JRAR DERALAKATTE. MANGALORE 57503 8 V?IDEv.AI~:.NExI_IRE--B. v'DIRI:C*I" 4?--J RESPONDENT "F0 ADMIT THE PE'1'I'1"'§ONER TO THE 1371 YEAR MBBS COURSE.
" " iv'? 23492423495 OF 2009 I SONIYA SHEKHAR
--« " 'D/O.SI~IEI<:I~IAR N SIIETIY ' SRI PADMA SHUBHANIDHI COLONY \«/ 16 HANGALUR KUNDAPUR 576 217 SHREEJA D NAYAK D/O.DE'\/DAS S P R/0.0DABAI HOUSE POST SULLIA D K 574 239, REP BY HER FATHER NATURAL GUARDIAN DEVADAS S P TEJASWINI M .
D/O.K MUKUNDA I O/NOS20, E & F' BLOCK, KUVEMPU NAGAR, MYSORE 570 023 MEGHANA T R D/O.REVANASIDDESHWARAT -.
VENKATESHWARA N1LA*:fA;"«BEHIN:J ~ _ _ _ CHANNAKESHAVA TEMP1;E:I,SO RPURA CHITRADURGA DIST 577 501,._RE.P BY HERQ __ FATHER NATURAL'GUARDIAN.I'A " " ' REVANASIDDESIAEWAR "'7fj_'~_,.,_PSm'1ONERS [By Sri I YENEPOYA UN1\fSRSf1'Y A h ' UNIVERSITY ROAD,' DERALARRFTE MANGALOR_ERJ3:P"B_Y IE VR1j3O1S'rRAR YENEPOYA MED.1_cAL COLLEGE ~ _ Urai1_\'rERSm_z ROAD; ~DERALAKA'1'I.'E MANGALORE ._ ' RI?ZP.13'i*_VI"1"S:V'PE§IN_CIPAL 2<}$RNAi'Ai§A. ERAMINARONS AUTHORITY G0}/ERl\EMEI§iT OF KARNATAKA SAMPIGE ROAD, 18TH CROSS NIALLESEMARAM BANGALORE '' *F§Y'_I'IS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR A 'AAVOREMAN REGULATORY COMMIETEE 'E0 OVERSEE THE A . _ ADMISSION TO PROFESSIONAL COURSES AND IMPLEMENTATION OF' THE CONSENSUAL ARRANGEMENTS, AGREEMENTS, KEA PREMISES 'V 18TH CROSS, MALLESWAIRAIM. BANGALORE 560012 5 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPT OF HEALTH AN D FMAILY WELFARE {MEDICAL EDUCATION} VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE 560001 BY ITS SECRETARY 6 THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL 1«:DUCAf: ON' I .. ANANDARAO CIRCLE A. BANGALORE--560 009 I 7 RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF H.E:AI:II~I sC1..1:NCE', ' JAYANAGAR IV *1' BLOCK I' ' " ' BANGALORE .
REP BY ITS REGISTRAR' 'a 8 THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA' 1 AIWANEGALIB MARC -_ v_ «V KOTLA ROAD, :OI=I?_VI\'_z:ATA SUNDAR1 NEWDELI-II1V1.{)0{J2._. '_ _ ' BY ITS sECREI'ARY-v-
9. UNIVERSITY ORANI*:;;:A.CoA1I2\zI1ssIOI\II1ICC), BAHADUR JAFIZR }\./IARG.
NEW DELHI:--11O 002'-...A_ * _ " .. ' - BY ITS SECRETARY. v _ __ RESPONDENTS {By Sri M~MAHABALESi=IW'A'R GOUD, ADV. FOR C /RI & R2 ADV. FOR R3 "'As1»IOK_ IIARANA.I:IA.LL1 AG & MANOHAR AOA _ FORR5 8; R6 _ ADV. FOR R8 . SRI.P_,S'IDiNE;SH KUMAR, ADV. FOR R9. R4 SERVED} I IBIS W. I%'1I,BD" PRIXYING TO M _ 'HDIREVCT THE COLLEGE TO ADMIT THE PETITIONERS FOR THE I "COURSE OF IST YEAR MBBS FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 200940 A PURSUANCE OF THE ADMISSION ORDER DTD 24.7.09 ISSUED ._ BYTEEE --R3£AUTHORITY VIDE ANNEX--B TO B3 TO THE W.P. \/ DIRECT THE R2 COLLEGE "DO ALLOW THE PETITIONERS TO ATTEND THE CALSSES OF 1ST YEAR MBBS FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2009~10 AND TO ALLOW THEM TO PROSECUTE AND COMPLETE THEIR MBBS COURSE IN THE R2 COLLEGE. IN W'? NO 23496 OF 2009 BETWEEN 1 MS MONIKAB D/O BALSUNDAR B, AGED ABOUT 17<Y"EARS, --_ NOTY4, I CROSS, CFTRE LAYOUT, BOGADIII f. 4 STAGE, MYSORE. REP. BY ITS FATHER : A 0 NATURAL GUARDIAN SR1. BALASUNDARE. 1?,'i.'~'<3".iT{"Ai'I'OA1\JERA.""I A (By Sri S VISIIWAJITH SHETIY, I NI'i'I'E UNIVERSITY [DEEMED UNIVERSITY} . ' UNIVERSITY ROAD,.DERjAI MANGALORE, REPSIBY IIS REGISTRAR * 2 NITIE K71 _ .
UNIVERSITY ROA17} DERAL "7.A'I'1'E. MANGAL-ORE, REE I I3: _ITS__ PRINCIPAL. 3 I<ARI\IATAI<A~4ExAM1IJA1*rON«S AUTHORITY. GOVERNMENT' "OF KARNATAKA.
~ I. I SAMIIIGE ROAD, 18TH_.SCROSS, MALLESHWARAM, '- I3ANOAI:;OREI.SBY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. 4 ' .__ONIE 'IvIAI«I,REOvIJI;ATORY COMMIT'T2E';E__ TO' OVERSEE THE ADMISSIQN"TO PROFESSIONAL COURSES & _ IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONSENSUAL ARRANGEMENTS AGREEMENTS, K.E.A. PREMISES V " 18TH CROSS, EVIALLESHWARAM, » EANOALORE-560012 "'1'HE"STA'3T'E OF KARNATAKA .. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE [MEDICAL DUCATION] VIKASA SOUDIIA, BAN A1 BY ITS SECRETARY.
56000 I 6 THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION ANANDARAO CIRCLE.
BANGALORE. 560009 7 RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE 3. JAYANAGAR IV T BLOCK, BANGALORE.
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.
8 THE MEDICALCOUNCILOF INDIA A1WAN--E--GALIB MARG, KOTLAROAO, OP_POSITE 9' I MATA SUNDARI, NEW DELHI BY ITS SECRETARY.
I 10002
9. UNIVERSITY GRANTS cOr»«M1ss:_O1w;Oc;... BAHADURSHAHJAFERMARG, "
NEWDELHIVIIOOO2. * BY ITS SECRETARY.~.. 3' _RES1"5ONDENTS {By Sri A1;>V,. FORifR1 &,':I SR1.N.KRAMESH,"AI)\7:fI7OR--R3 ' 1 "
ASHOK AG 5: MANOHAR AGA FOR R5 3:' _sR1,N..KH.E'i.*IY,.ADV. FOR R8 SRIv.AP.S.DINE.3f~'I-.EiUMAR,'"ADV. FOR R9 ) THIS WP. FILED APRAYINO TOA . I I DIRECT THE R2 COLLEGE TO ADIVIIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE COURSE I YEAR M'B.B_S_'FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2009- 10 IN PURSUANC:E'OF* ADMISSION ORDER DTD 24.7.09 ISSUED BY R3' ALITIFIORITY VIDE ANNEX~B TO THE W.P. DIRECT IRE R2°cOL:';EOE TO ALLOW THE PETITIONER "DO ATTEND I CLASSES OF' 921.51' YEAR MBBS FOR EH. ACADEMIC YEAR 2009» 10 AND ALLOW/I HER T U'l'E AND COMPLETE THEIR E COURSE «IN THE R2 C 20 WP NO 2364'?~23656 OF 2009 BETWEEN I rjég 5 MS.LAKSHMI?RIYA RAGHAVAN, D/O.DR.T.JAYANI{)I RAGHAVAN, AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY FATHER DR.T.JAYANI;DHI RAGHAVAN.
VAISHNAVAM, CHEBAKA HOUSING COLONY, PO'I'I'AMMAL.
NELLIKODE P.O. CALICUT 678016 KERALA Ms. ANJALI P.K. D/O MRSATIANATH P.K. AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS PADIKKAMPOIL {H} PANNICODE {PO} MUKKOM KOZHIKODE 673602.
MS. ASHWINI s1r:1.AI~1sTRY-"""'Wf'A A. A4 D/O MR. RAMAK1{I,S}INA:_SHAS'FRY. 'V ., AGED ABOUT 18 A _ _ no MA:N1,--. BANTWAL 'i'ALUK'"~ .. ' {)AKS;-1I1=IA KANDJAIJA" 5_74A:2__5-3.' MRDEVARATH VsHI~:T19Y, S s/0 j1V1R._U SADASHIVA SI-IETFY AC}_£lD ABOUT 17 A - MINOR,'7REPI?ESEN'1'ED BY GUARDIAN A .__ LAE.I'1'HA' NIiA1'A j.. sH1--R_0OR."_HQL_LARAD1 POST M'L§DDUMA££'E = UDUPI DISTE{ICT.
.. : MR.V1sHAL SINGH CHAMMWAL S/(J-MR.P s CHAMPAWAL ' -_AG_E_D ABOUT 18 YEARS C/O MRNARENDRA BHATI PLOT No.6, SECTOR--A VIDHYA NAGAR HOSHANGABAD ROAD BHOPAL 462026. M MSUZMA SARA MUNAF D/O MRNOORE ALAM NAWA2;
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS MINOR REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MRSSHAHISH IIVITIAZ FLAT NO.l E, DAANISH APARTMENTS NEAR GOKARNA NATH TEMPLE ALAKE, MANGALORE3 MS. SHAMBRAVI A. VAIDYA D /O MRS. CHITRA A. VAIDYA .
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS I MINOR REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND. A NATURAL GUARDIAN MRS.cHITRA A. VAIDYA _ C/O TR. ENGG., P.O.BO.XNO.I5ST.. ' P.C. 112, RUWI I 5 _ " ~ SULTANATE OF OMAN MS. ARSHIA SAYED 'I D /0 MR. SYED_RA_I3I'_G .
AGED ABOUT is X SARAFIG COTI' I' PADUMARNDU ' ' POST BELVAI E742"I::;3...
MS. cR:,_STI.NE A ' D /O MR.--THOMASVv'VVARGI§IESE AGED ABG¥}'i"=18 IFEARS . V CHEMMANAM H'OUS,E P.O. '- ._ ' ERNAKULAM DIS'I'RI~{i.'I'.. « . *K,EJRALA= 686' 71726 1G w *.,EANGA;,O1RE 550 024 _ MS'; 'S1ANDHUV"RAV.RAO R*1-DAD .RAGHOTI-IAMA AGED' ABOUT 19 YEARS NOJ2, II.~3»4A1jN ROAD SEM" COLON Y, ANAND NAGAR PETE'I'EONER{S)
5." :B§%""LIDAYA HOLLA SENIOR ADV, FOR M,'-S HOLLA & HOLLA, ADVS] V I\.' Ix.' AND:
1 STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION.
VIKASA SOUDHA.
DRAMBEDKAR VEEDHI ROAD.
BANGALORE ~ 560 001.
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
2 KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY. MALLESWARAM, BANGALORE660 003.
REP. BY SPECIAL OFFICER.
3 N ITYE UNIVERSITY, DERALAKATTA, I\/IANGALORE675 018.
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.
4 UNIVERSITY GRANTS COIVIMIsSIION"(IIGCI'I;... BAHADUR SHAH JAFER MAR_G,l_ ;g .v NEW DELHI--1 10 002. ' BY ITS .s~F;CRF:TARi>:;:,;
5 MEDICAL (IOUNS1I;'OF'.INDIA'.'-- ' AIAWAN+F.--OALIEL_ "
KOTLA ROAD ' ' --
NEW I:)_F:LH11I. I0 077:. RESPONDENT(S] (By: AG 3: MANOHAR AGA FOR R1 " SRINK RAMESH, ADV. FOR R2 ' "'sm.WJA1*AsRANmR ADV. FOR R3 ._FSRI..PLS,DINEVSH KUMAR, ADV. FOR R4 g SRI.N.'I£1%1ETl.';T'Y, ADV. FOR R5} THIS WP IPRAYING TO::-
" ISSUE AOF MANDAMUS OR DECLARATION THAT THE OF 24 SEATS BY THE R2 TO THE R3 INSTITUTION IN
-~ ._ Muss. COURSE FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2009-10 IS NOT IN '- ..ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
V IN WP NO 2253}. OF' 2009 BETWEEN 1 AND:
MISS SHRUTHI SANTHOSH KUMAR RAG A/A 17 YEARS, D/O SANTI-IOSH KUMAR RAO. MINOR, REP. BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHER, LSANTHOSH KUMAR RAO, NO. 501, ADVAITH APARTMENT.
BHAGAVATHINAGAR, KODIAL GUTH WEST, MANGALORE 575003 [By Sri K S BHARATH KUMAR, ADV.)--I ~ STATE OF KARNATAKA * _V V g_ REP. BY SECY. MEDICAL EDUCATION. DEIIVI', VIDHANA SOUDHA . * BANGALORE THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOI{;- 1' KARNATAKA EXAMINATONS AIITO_R1fry SAMPIGvEI*R0g\D. ' 1.E:§'i:":}} Ci?C)'SS, ' ' '- MALLE:SWARA'M",_.. H BANGALORE ' ' NI'I'I'E UNIVERSITY, . I REP. BY ITS DERz'3I;A' K A'Ij"i'E,""
v _ MAECIAIIOEE 575013 .... .. v ' HEGDE MEDICAL ACADEMY.
E. ..DI3;RALA_KATI'P3';- MAN GALORE EEIEIEY Vl"i'Sf PRINCIPAL MAJ_'§IGALQ.RE:--_. I ' I THE DY. COMMISSIONER _ 'D.K. DIST.
v~.:"NmNGALORE IINIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION {UGC) REP BY ITS SECRETARY NEW DELHI. \N/ PEHIIONER). "' ' 7 MEDICAL COUNCIL OF' INDIA {MCI} REP BY ITS SECRETARY NEW DELHI. RESPONDENTS [By ASHOK HARANAI-IALLI AG ('SI MANOHAR AGA FOR R1 8: R5 SKI N K RAMESH. ADV. FOR R2 M V SESHACHALA FOR R3 81 R4 SR1.P.S.IZ)INESI-I KUMAR, ADV. FOR R6 SRI.N.KHE'ITY, ADV. FOR R7) ~ THIS WP FILED PRAYING T03"
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMEN1f.IfI'.27..7.G9. ISSa:IE"D Si' THE R3, VIDE ANN~B. DIRECT THE R4, To ADMIT IST YEAR MBBS COURSE. a .
DIRECT THE R5, TO ENFORCE.'i'HEIAVDMISE-I_O1\IIOREER. mw.P.No.22628-:63é];gb0§.__ BETWEEN: -------- "I I I
1. BAN'IW'AL RRIYA SALI(f;A,' 1:)/o.I)R.B.S'--.BAI.1GA, ' _ AGED ABOUT--18 YEARS, " , »--
N0.488,IIMA1N;--. "
8'"? CROSS. BTM LAYOUT II STAGE.
" BANGAl;DRE~560 076'; A ..... .. v
2. "AI«*RC:2:A, D./(5..AB_OO_I_3AKI{AR P.I-1. AG.ED._ABO1vJI?_¢ 13 V406, MARS AN D VENUS APARTMENT, I CHILIA/_I13I,AsH0I£2\§AGAR 19.0., MANGALOR§3}57'5 002.
. 1s:.S"RAMA RAU D/O.ROH.I'1' HKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS.
"--'VARADAI3RAvAN*, SHIVANAGAR,
-I-I1--EJAMAJ:)Y~574 103.
IJDUPI DISTRICT.
;_"*4...__féAvYA J.S. D/OJAYASHANKAR KULLAL, 'AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS.
\\~«/
4. YENEPOYA UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY ROAD.
DERALAKATTA, MANGALORE6750 18.
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION. BAHADUR SHAH ZLAFER IVIARG.
NEW DELHI.
REP BY ITS SECRETARY.
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA.
AIAWNAN E GALIB ROTLA ROAD, NEW DELHI.
REP BY ITS SECRETARY. ' RES-I>ON'DEN':fS (BY ASHOK I"{AR}&\__1"AIi{ALL1 AG ._I»IAN.OIIAR AGA FOR R1 'I I SRI. N.K. RAMESH, ADV. FOR j _ M MAI-IABALESHV'fARAV:GOUD._FOR R3 R4 SR1. RS. «DI_N'_I?.SH$.KUI\/IAR. EORIRS SR1. _AD"V. FOR R6) ' ' "
TIIIS WRIT I§E:?ITIOI§I.VIS~.I5*ILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OR INDIA 'PRAYING 'TO DECLARE THAT THE ALLOTIVIENT OI=f2A SEA'I'S..BY.R2 TO THE R3 INSTITUTION IN 1\/{BBS COURSE II~Q_RI THE ACADENIIC YEAR 20092010. IN_w1> NQ :_226.'-I5-2262;-1_VOVF 2009 EsI?'1w... I 1 I-. CI»:-ITRA I P-AI" :<:j*~ . I I AGED 18' D/O LATE GURUDUTI' PAI K NO.,6-I9.~833j'..-- * SUGIIOSH,' NEAR GANDIIINAGAR PARK IVIANNAGUDDA = MAI\?GAI;OREA575OO3 I '~fI'H--1'.§3:NEEI\/IA N K AGED 18 YEARS I .. D/O SULAIMAN NAZIM AMAR ALVA ROAD MANGALAD EVI MANGALORE-- 5 7
- UfI'1"ARA SHAILA D/O BALAKRISHNA BHAT P AGED 17 YEARS C / O KARNATAKA BANK MANCHL574 323 BANTWAL TALUK DK SINCE MINOR REP BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN 8: HIS MOTHER SMT GE SHMI.
FARHEEN SANA SHAKIR AGED 17 YEARS D/O MOHAMMED SHAKIR M K C/O P A KUKKADY ..
N068, ANNABELLE MANOR--II KMC ROAD. BEJAI MANGALORE--575004 9 SINCE MINOR REP BY HER NATURAL 8: HER GRAND FATHER SRLP A HUKKADY. . NISHITH N ALVA AGED 17 YEARS D/O DR N c ALVA HOLY CROSS HOSPITAL I .
JYOTHINAGAR .
CHIKMAGALUR .
SINCDIVIINOR H.RR..I;\/IOTHI':R & NA':{URAI., GUARD.1AN SIvI'I';SI;:IIxIA N ALVA ' ' M VARSHA ID/O S"MA'N.;I UNATH AGED 18 YEARS _ j CHANDAN, MARIKAMBA NAGAR SIRS}, e ' ..... ..
.VASUDI«:VAN K R AGIIID 17 SKS FARM HDUSE, GUTFINADU, SEEBARA. IYANALLY 1: O CHITRADURGA SINCE} MINOR REP BY HIS MOTHER/ _ ' NATURAL GUARDIAN.
SMT..SUMAT_HI D PE'I'I'I'iONERS ,,,,5R§'f'5;~; T-R RAJENDR.\I::I%R SUNGAY. ADV.) 1 STATE OF' KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF' HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE. MEDICAL EDUCATION. VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALO REP BY ITS SECRETARY 2 KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY 18TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE -560012 REP BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 3 K S HEGDE MEDICAL ACADEMY _-- " ~ DERALAKATTE. NITTIYANANDANAGAVRIROST MANGALORE-575018 .
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL
4. NITTE UNIVERSITY ' _ , DERALAKATTE, NI'I'YANANDANAG;, "POST . MANGALORE--575018 REP BY ITS REGISTRAR 4 UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION BAHADUR SHAH JAFAR NEW DLEI;HI_T'*IT..I °1iI::.;
REP Big ITS SE{:VREff'ARY-- . 'V 5 MEDICAL. COUNCIL'C)I<.'_ INDIA' POCKET NORTH, SECTORS;
DWARAKA, 'RRASEJ,-. ~ "
NEW; DEI,I~II»l 10.075 REPBY I'If3_SECRE;TARY RESPONDENTS ' ,(By..ASHOK'Er:£ARANAHALLI AG 8: MANOHAR AGA FOR R1. ' .E_3RI;'N,K._R2'~*.MEs',SH ADV. FOR R2 ~. SRl'.M.\7.SESIt§ACHAI.A, ADV. FOR R3 81 R4 'SRI.P.S..UI'I~§.ESII KUMAR, ADV. FOR R5 SR1.N;..KR_ETTV, ADV. FOR R6) 4: }?n..FILI3fD PRAYING TO -- DIRECT RESPONDENIS 3 & 4 To PERMIT THE PE'I'I'I'IONERS .j-TO'REI=~ORT TO THE I YEAR M.B.B.S. COURSE FOR THE ACADEMIC ':/iEAR.2009-10 FORTHWITH. \/ IO DIRECT THE R4 TO APPROVE THE ADMISSION OF THE PETITIONERS TO THE 1 YEAR M.B.B.S. COURSE AT THE R3 INSTITUTION FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2009-10 AND PERMIT THEM TO CONTINUE AND COMPLETE THEIR M.B.B.S. COURSE AND PERMIT THEM TO APPEAR FOR THE EXAMINATIONS ., WHEN IT FALLS FUE AS PER THE REGULATIONS GOVERi\¥I'N£}' COURSE, VVITHOUT ANY INTERFERENCE IN THEIR --'.4IACADVI'£'M'I'CCb : I' CURRICULUM 1.. ,_ _ .
GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO DIRECT THE RATTO KEEP--VACA.N"1'I'I 01 SEAT AND FURTHER RESTRAIN THE RAITRQTVT..COMMEN'CIN:3-...A 1.3 THE CLASSES.
EV WP NO 23160 OF 2009 BETWEEN 1 MR.HARsHAvAROHAN'.R-.'RURfa* AGED 18 YEARS', 'j I Z. ~ ~ S/O RANGAPPA IRIRI , _ ' NO.H D 2ND' FLOO'R'5I_ ' I ._ ' SOUTH ENO_A;?.ARTMENT I BANG,ALORE' .4 . PETITIONER (By sf: K- EHARATH. ADV.) 1, ' ,S'1'ATEV_OF'E€ARNA'l'AKA TTEP m*s_'ECRET;ARY =MEDICAl..J'_EDLICATION DEPARTMENT VLDHANA sOU1:>HA BANGALORE ' EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR VKARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY SAMPIGE ROAD. 18TH CROSS }MALLEs1~IwARAM. BLORE V AND:
31
MALLYARBETTU GANGULI 576 216.
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT. PETITIONER {By Sri T P RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY, ADV.) STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF' HEALTH AND FAMILY VVELFARE, MEDICAL EDUCATION ..
VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE RERBY ITS SECRETARY.
KARNATAKA EXEMINATIONS AU'1'}_:'[OR1'F"{_ ISTII CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD, A MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE 12 ' _ RIEZRBY ITS EXECUTIVE JDIRECTOP-.., " I --. "
YENEPOYA MEDICAL COLIIECIEI ;
AFFILIATED TO YENEPOYA UNIV./'ERSI'I"_Y_ V "
UNIVERSITY ROAD, V DERALAKATTE. _. ~ :
MANGALORE5_75§3'18~ _ , ' RE3P.B I YENEPOYA UI\IIVflT.RS_I"IY UNIVERSITY QUAD)' ._ "
DERALAI{A'I'E'F. " " A .--
IvIAN(_}ALOm. 575.038 REP; I3Y_1'i'S REGISTRAR.
* UNIVER§IT§'ICIRANTEHCOMMISSION {UGC} I IBAHASUR SI-IA}-I JAFAR MARC} NEW BELBI -1-1Q.~002 REE-3.,I'"3Y -SECRETARY.
MEDICAL' COUIVCII. OF INDIA POCKETNO. 14, SECTOR 8.
= I DWARARA, PHASE4.
'~ NEW.&DELHI»ll0 075 " R3'i'.P..BY ITS SECRETARY RESPO NDENTS 'M [By ASHOK HARANAHALL1 AG & MANOHAR AGA FOR R}. SRI.N.K.RAI\/IESH, ADV. FOR R2 SRI.M.MAHABALESHWAR, ADV. FOR R3 & R4 SRI.P.S.DINESI-I KUMAR, ADV. FOR R5 SRI.I\3'.KI-IETIY, ADV. FOR R8] THIS W.P. FILED PRAYTNG TO ~ A]DIRECT THE R3 8: 4 TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER TQ RI'"£'.POR"1~' TC R' I THE I YEAR M.B.B.S. COURSE FOR THE ACADEMIC Y'EAR«20.09'-- I0, FOR'l'HV\/TFH AND:
B}DIRI3CT THE R4 TO APPROVE TI~IEO7AI:3-I\/Ii'SSIOFI.E'. 'OF. PETITIORER TO THE I YEAR M.E=.E_.S. COURSE THE R3' INSTITUTION FOR THE ACADEMIC YER "2.Q09--1'C AND PER}\.(II'I"HER TO CONTINUE AND COMPLETE HER,M.E.E.S;~._COURSE AND PERMIT HER TO APPEAR FOR THE EXAMINATIONS AS.AND* WHEN IT FALLS DUE AS PER THE~..REG.UI.ATI.ONS"-OOVERNINIG THE COURSE, WITHOUT ANY INTEIRFERENCE THEIR ACADEMIC CURRICULUIVLAND; = CIOR ALTERNAT1vELY.,,DI.RECjT THERI "8~:f'2 TO ADMISSION TO THE PETITIONERIN 'ANY OTHER"MEDIVCAE COLLEGE/S TO THE I YEAR M.E.E.S.__. COURSE'. F'O_R.__ '1'-EIE'-.'ACADEMIC YEAR 2009-I0 BEFORE THE LAST DATE FIXED 'RCR'ADMI'SSI'ON AND PERMIT HER TO CONTINUEEWAND'"COIvIPLETE* THE COURSE AS PER THE REGULATIONS WT!TI€OUTi"? 'INTERFERENCE IN HER ACADEMIC CURRICULUM, AND; . .
D}DIRECT THE'--R_1* 5: »--PAY COSTS TO EACH OF THE PETITIONER EOR'*-VHAIHNG HER TO APPROACH THIS HONELE COURT WITHOUT HER PAULT WHATSOEVER. NO'P':>.§;§9_=§g§§96 oféooe EET'w__EEN"' A O V .. I . I PRATHIE_HAP: NAIR _ D/ H SUNDAR NAIR AOEDAEOUT 17 YRS " ELA'T NOJ7, COMFORT MANOR V. SHARDA MANTAP ' --.KUN_.JIBE'I*TU, UDUPI-576 1.02 SINCE MINOR REP BY FATHER SRI.H. SUNDAR NAIR V AND:
33
SHRUTHI S IGOOR D/O I V SHANKAR GOWDA AGED ABOUT E8 YRS IGOOR POST. VIA YESLUR SAKLESHPUR TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT573 137 [By Sri T P RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY, ADV.) STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPT OF HEALTH AND FAMILYIIWELFARE MEDICAL EDUCATION ' ._ VIKAS SOUDHA. BANGALORE-01"", REP BY ITS SECRETARY KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AIITLIORITI: _ I8TI--I CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD ' _ MALLESHWARAM, BANGAL_ORE+1_2 C REP BY ITS EXE;CUT:vE:D1RI4;C:rOII...'v*»«_ K S HEDGE MEDICAL ACADEMY I AFFILIATED TO-NITTE-.UNI\.?I:;RSIT7{ I DERAIAIIATTE. NITIIIAINAIITIJANAGIIIQ. I5OST MANGALORE4'l8_.. H ' _ -
REP B&<AITS'PRINcI'IIg\L.I. ' NITTE UNIVERSITY I ' DERALAKA'I"I'E3 VNITIYANANBANAGAR POST MANjGAL,ORE« I v _ RB.'_.Ié*I3I( _1fIS__REGIS I COMMISSION S:-ITIHJAIIAR MARS NE'VV'DELHfI~<.1V17:0V 002 RE? BY ITS SECRETARY I MEDIC-Alli. COUNCIL OF INDIA POICKEIF' NO. I 4, SECTOR 8.
J} DWARAKA, PHASE-I,
-..NEWA'DELHI-1 10 075 REP BY ITS SECRETARY RESPONDENTS \/ PE'TITIONfiR$' 34 [By ASHOK HARANAHALLI AG & MANOHAR AGA F OR R} SR}.N.K.RAMESH ADV. FOR R3 8: R4 SRI.P.S.DINESH KUMAR, ADV. FOR R5 SRI.N.KHE3TTY, ADV. FOR R6} THIS W.P. FILED PRAYING TO --
A}DIRECT THE R3 & 4 TO PERMIT THE PETITIONERS TOREPORT _ TO THE I YEAR M.B.B.S. COURSE FOR THE ACADEMIC "x'$AR'2009+' I 10 FOR1'H\/VITH AND: g B}DIRECT THE R4 TO APPROVE THE ADAMIjSS1O'N"~O'Er<1fHE_} PETITIONERS TO THE I YEAR M.B.B.S."gCQURSEVAT.fl'}~1E"_'R.3'--.
INSTI'F{3'TION POR THE ACADEMIC. YER 2.00940 AND 'PERMIT THEM TO CONTINUE AND COMPLETETIWIEIR M-..E.H.,S.'-..COURSE AND PERMIT THEM TO APPEAR FOR TEE.EXAM1NAHDO.NS'I;AS AND WHEN IT FALLS DUE AS PER THE REGULAR-ONS GOVERNING THE COURSE, WITHOUT ANY INTE}RFEREN'CI5Q II'\I,THEIR"*ACADEMIC CURRICULUM, AND; ' --
C}OR ALTERNATTVELY, DIRECTV_THE R1 3: ADMISSION TO THE PETI'HONERS_'I'N_ OTTJER' MEDICAL COLLEGE/S TO THE I YEAR M.B.B.S: COURSE_ FOR~'I'HE ACADEE\%IIC YEAR 200940 BEFORE THE LAST'-..D£:5fFE._v_ E+'IXED- FOR ADMISSION AND PERMIT THEM TO CONTE'xIUE_"A1\ID=COMPLE-TE'THE COURSE AS PER THE REGULATIONS wI--TH*OTIf1' I1'i'IERF.ERENCE§ TN THEIR ACADEMIC CURRICULUM'; AND:'t;
DIDIRECT THEORIV 8; COSTS TO EACH OF THE PEZTITIONERS FOR» HAVING THEM TO APPROACH THIS HON'BLE COURT wITROU'fI* THEIR' FAULT WHATSOEVER. TNWP NO'i2,44§1;o OF 2009.. ..... .0 « BVE'T§V»'};:jEi\E_ ' A 1 sR;..I>TIRAN}.;IANA'K M V. S','_O RAVISHANKAR BEHIND' GOVT. HOSPITAL SR} GURU KOTTURESHWARA NAGARA V " I<:OT'1*UR-- KUDLIGI TALUK Y. BELLARY DSITRICT 533134, SINCE MINOR ' RE.'P_,i3Y HIS RATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN PE2Ti'1'IONER ~ " "(By Sri M-M-PRASHANTHA, ADV.) V 35 AND:
1 STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AN D FAMILY WELFARE MEDICAL EDUCATION, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE RERBY ITS SECRETARY.
2 KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY 18TH CROSS SAMPIGE ROAD. ._ MALLESHWARAM, BANGALOER 12 :
REPEY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.
3 YENEPOYA MEDICAL COLLEGE AFFILIATED TO YENEPOYA UNSDIVERSIT"{,__ ' .
UNIVERSITY ROAD, ' _ '-
DERALAKATIE, MANGALORE 575. 018, 'I REP_BYITSPRIRCIPAI.V_ ..
4 YENEPOYA UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY ROAD, .
_, : MANGALOREi575gi0'1S _ " REP.8YI'IS RE'EIS*IRIAR.«.._~...__ ,j.RESPONDEN'IS
(By ASI-IOK THARAI':;AH:A£,LI«.AG &--M_ANOHAR AGA FOR R1 SRI.1\%\K.RAMESH, ADV, FOR R2 .
SRI.M....V.SES}IAc*'I?LAI;A, FOR R3 Ba R4 SRI.P.S..DINESII'KU__MAR;. FOR R5 SRI.N.KHET'I'Y, ADV: .FOR'*R6) THIS WP, ;_FILED PRAEING' TO}-
RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 TO PERMIT THE PETI"I'E_OI'~IERS_V AND ATTEND THE I YEAR M.B.B.S. COURSE. FOR YEAR 2009-10 FORTHVVITH. V~~DIRECT 4514191' 'RESPONDENT TO APPROVE THE ADMISSION OF THE PETITIONERS. TO THE I YEAR M.B.B.S. COURSE AT THE 3RD .I3;.RESPONDENT'~;.INS'm*UTION FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2009-10 AND IéERMIT"TIIEM TO CONTINUE AND COMPLETE THEIR M.B.B.S COI:IRSE"AND PERMIT THEM TO APPEAR FOR THE EXAMINATIONS AS. AND ..WHEN IT FALLS DUE AS PER THE REGULATIONS
- COVERNING THE COUR WI OUT ANY INTERFERENCE IN * TI+IEHI_R.AIACADEMIC CURRIC 36 H'? WP NC 24656-24657 OF 2009 BETWEEN 1 NI'I'I'E EDUCATION TRUST 7TH FLOOR, RAMABI-IAVAN COMPLEX. KODIALBAIL, MANGALORE REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR SR1. N.V HEGDE, S/O LATE K.s.HEOI3F;~ 7TH FLOOR, RAMABHAVAN COMPLEX, ' KODIALBAIL, MANGALORE *~ ' _ A ~ 575003 L.., PE'I'1TION.ERS ' [By S VIJAYSHANKAR SENIOR COUNSEL FOR ' Sri M V SESHACHALA, ADV.) " "
UNIVERSTIY GRANT COMMISSION I BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR " "
NEWDELHI, : '_'-- .» REP. BYITS SE.CY.;.f'" . ' STATE OF ' , "
MEDICAL EDUC.A'I'ION, . ' _ -- VIKAsA..sOIII3HA,'é§zsNC:0ALORF ' ' 560001' -- *'» *»'vIv STATE OF KZXRNATAFA A DEPT. OFI~IIGH'I:R EDUCATION, v 0. VIKASAZSIOI/IDHA, ..... "I3ANGAI;OFE OO;'560O01uO*' "KA'§I§NA1*AF;A-- EXAFIINAFION AUTHORITY. MALI.ESIjfWAf:?AM BANGALORE "
« 'MEDICAI'; COUNCIL OF INDIA.
»._"POCE<:ET~14, SEC'1'OR--8, DWARAKA I?}{ASE~I, NEW DELHIME I007?
... RESPONDENTS __(I§y Sn' P.S«DINESH KUMAR, ADV. FOR R1 ASHOK HARANA}"£ALLI AG 81 MANOI-{AR AGA FOR R2 & R3 SRI.N.K.RAMESH, ADV. FOR R4 SRI.N.K.HETT'Y. ADV. FOR R5) V 37 THIS W.P. FILED PRAYING TO:~ DECLARE THAT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS INSISTENCE OF RETAINING 25% SEATS IN FIRST PETITIONER UNIVERSITYHIS CONTRARY TO LAW AND UGC ACT AND REGULATIONS AND. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
IN W1' NO 24672 OF 2009 BE 1. W EEN 1 h E'?
KUM P A RAMAVANA D/O SHRLGURURAJ RAMAVANA V .
AGED ABOUT 1 7 YEARS, SII\Ic1:f;rMI2\":0I-'< 1 BY HER FATHER & NATURAL GU,A]Z-KADIAN SMT. _ . GURURAJ RAMAVANA S /O K.LAKHM1'NARAYAN -- A/A 49 YEARS, R/AT NO.1-<13/1, RAINBOW * DRIVE, SARJAPURA ROAI3I_ ' j " ' CHARMELARAIVI POST-560. C35 ;g . ';.v.._'I?E'I"IfIIONI3R [By Sri B M ARUN,_ADV.] GOVEMH'vIE.N'I'*OF IKIARNATAKA * A BY ITS:VPRINCIIPIAI.. SECRETARY DEPARTIVIENIT OF" A FAMILY WELFARE.
IMEDICAM:-DUcAf1IO_N3_ ' VIKASA SOUDHA, " .--
I3AI\IOALORI§::~56'0 00';
v EXAIVIIIIMIONS AUTHORITY "1.8'I'H cROSS,~.SAMI=>IO.E ROAD, ' ._
-..BAI\IGAL.TORE-«5€\Q_:O12 1\II*;firi%: E£)UC'A.I"I;O§\I TRUST A DEEMED 'UNIVERSI'I'Y HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 7m FLOOR, RAMA BHAVAN COMPLEX, "IIODIALI3AII,, MANGALORE~575 003
- I »f»REI>';3Y ITS PRESIDENTSHRI.N.VINAYAI<A " _ -I-IEEGDE UFNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSIONER I ""BAI~IADUR SHAHA ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI-I 10 001 BY ITS SECRETARY \/ 38 MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA HAVING ITS OFFICE AT SECTOR--8, POCKET E4, DVVARAKA wl.
NEW DELI-{I-1 10 077 BY ITS SECRETARY RESPONDENTS {By ASHOK HARANAI-IALLI AG 81 MANOI-IAR AGA FOR SRI.N.K.RAMESI--I, ADV. FOR R2 2 SRIJ/IJAYAKUMAR, ADV. FOR R3 SRI.P.S.DINESH KUMAR, ADV. FOR R4 SRI.N.KHE'I'I'Y, ADV. FOR R5} -
THIS W.P. FILED PRAYING TO:~ DIRECT THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO'A£D.MIT THE PETITIONERH To A ITS INSTITUTION (K.S.HEGDE MEDICAL» EU_R.SUANT TO THE ADMISSION ORDER DT. 24.7.2009 {ANNEX-D} ISSUED BY THE) 2ND RESPONDENT, TO THE PETITIONER; --. IN WP NO 24232-24234 OF 20("§9:It T ., 2' BETWEEN V.,A;SIHISHEK H R, ' -S/O DR R RAGHAVENDRA MS CHMTRA AGED 318 D/O GOVAiE{DHAN'C..a'I_ ., -
NO.315,710'1'«H CROSS__",~ .BYRASA.NDRA, JAYANAGAR, 3RD 'IBLOCE, EAST BANGALORE': ..560() I ' "
MS; M « ..... .. « 'AGED »I3.V/OVVISI~1*JVEN*I*I~_¥.A A ._. BEEZALKAR LANE KAKI<ESETR_I,' KULSHEKARA, MP.I\IGALORE¢575005.
MINOR REP BY MOTRER 8:
NATURALj_GUARD1AN SMT Ti-IARAMATIII K AGED I 7 YEARS No.55, MIG II, KHB COLONY, GOPALA II PHASE, SHIMOGA--577205 " "SINCE MINOR REP BY HIS FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN .
DR H B RAG}-IAVENDRA 'Iv ... PETITIONERS 39 (By Sri T P RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY, ADV.) STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND RAMILY WELFARE A O MEDICAL EDUCATION , VIKAS SCUDRA, BANGALORE~560012 REP BY ITS SECRETARY KARNATAKA EXAMINATIAONS AUTHORITY" 1. ' 18TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD I MALLESHWARM, . I BANGALORE~560012 _ , REP BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR"
YENEPOYA MEDICAL COLLEGE," -
AFFILIATED TO YENEPOY.A"UNI'--VERSITY_ UNIVERSITY ROAD, s ' DERALAKATTE, "
MANGALORE-575L}18 REP BY ITS PR:~z€C'I;PM YENEROYA U'NR,%.ERsiIfI'sr" . UNIVERSITY ROAD} -~ _ ' DERALAI<AT-PE - I ' ._ 1. ._ MANGALO'RE¢E575O'}_8'7A »-- I REP BY ITS REGIsTRAR._ UNI"IfER$I'Py CRANTs..c0MMIssI0N " EAI+mD'URsRA_H ZAFAR MARC I NEWVD-£_LHI?«l10002 O" IVIEUICAL VCVOUNVCIL OF' INDIA PCCIU~:'1";.1.-4.' SECTORS DWARKA, PI*£ASE~I NEW DELHI ~ 110075 'R1~:.P_ BY"I--*I'S SECRETARY ... RESPONDENTS " [By ASROK HARANAHALLI AG 81 MANOHAR AGA FOR RI A ....SR1.P.S.DINESH KU.
.K.RAMESH, ADV. FOR R2 SRI.C. ALESHWAR GOUD. ADV. FOR R3 81 R4 , AZ) . FOR R5 SRI.N.KHET1'Y, ADV. R 6) 40 THIS W.P. FILED PRAYING TO --
DIRECT THE R4 TO APPROVE THE ADMISSION OF"'.fi'i<IE"-V PE'I'£'FIONERS TO THE I YEAR M.B.B.S. COURSE I. INS'I'ITUTION FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 200940 PEE?3V§.Iff' THEM TO CONTINUE AND COMPLETE THEIR M.E.E.S.._ C~.'3*URSE* AND PERMIT THEM '10 APPEAR FOR THE EXAMINA_TIONS~.AS~.AND _ WHEN IT FALLS DUE AS PER TIIE REOUIATIONS GOVERNING '£'HE ' COURSE, WITHOUT ANY INTERFERENCE CURRICULUM.
IN WP NO 25371 OF 2009 BETWEEN 1 MS RAMYA D /O A.N.RAMESH'BABI';§ AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, '- _ 5 ' R/AT NO. 3 123/}, AISHWARYA,.V'A 7TH CROSS, SRDMAIN, I GIRINAGAR 2ND P1sIASE.,. 1 BANOALORE4Sa_'«--.. I' PETITiONER {By SI1A£)'.f;]'-.. I I STATE OE V"
" v DEI?ARTj1y1EI\IfI' OF 8:. FAD/[IL"Y".VELFARE MEDICA.L'ED:ICAfI'ION, VIKAS SOUDHA, .BA.NOAI.,_ORE REIHEIY I SYSECRETARY EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY 7 ISTH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD, 'MALI.ESVEIWARAM, BAN GAI,.ORE~560 012 ..j_=REI> "BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
--. TENEPOYA MEDICAL COLLEGE I A_FFILIA'I'ED TO YENEPOYA UNIVERSITY "'UNIvERSI'IY ROAD, DERALAKATFE Iv1;ANGALORE--575 O18 REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL V » IN_%EI'R "AC;AD~E;P1I¥C._ I' 4 YENEPOYA UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY ROAD.
DERAI..AKA'I'I'E MANGALORE-575 018 REP BY ITS REGISTRAR RESPONDENTS [By ASHOK HARANAHALLI AG 8: MANOHAR AGA FOR R1 M IVIAHABALESVVAR GOUD FOR R3 8: R4 N K RAMESH FOR R2 GA SD.) THIS W.P. FILED PRAYING TC):-
DIRECT THE RESPONDENT 3 AND 4 TO PERMITTHEEPETIi1*1ONIi:R"'I TO REPORT THE IST YEAR MBBS COURSE FOR THE-ACA}3=EM'IC YEAR 200940 FORWITH {ANNEX--'B]. . DIRECT THE 4TH RESPONDENT To AP'PRO.vE 'FH_E ADMISSION OF THE PETTIIONER TO THE 1ST=YEAR'MBBS "COURSE AT THE 3RD RESPONDENT INSTITUTION FOR fI"I«IEO~.,!'iCADEMV1C.YEAR 200940 AND PERMIT HER TO CONTINUE AND COMPLETE 'THEIR MBBS COURSE AND PERMIT HER TO APPEAR ROR THE EXAMINATIONS AS AND WHEN IT;"P'I';LI.S DUE AS "PER REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE WITEOUT INTERFERENCE IN HER ACADEMIC C:;JRRICULL_IMV. ' -
Ev WP NO 25664 or 2010-9% "
BETWEEN I I I I 1__ SHARMIYAVR ' .AA/ASIA: D/O NRAJENDRAN, RAA N. 13./I..41I«..Ivi.AIN ROAD. OLD"BYAI?AN}\HAI,LI, 56.0033 PETITIONER (By V..D§RAvIRAJ, ADV.) STATE OF KARNATAKA " DEPT OF HEALTH ('BI FAMILY WELFARE = ...MEDICAL EDUCATION, VIKAS DEA, BANGALORE. REP. BYI CY.
KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY. 18TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD.
MALLESI-FWARAM.
BANGALORE 560012 REP. BY ITS EX. DIRECTOR.
YENEPOYA MEDICAL COLLEGE.
AFFILIATED TO YENEPOYA UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY ROAD, DERALAKATTE.
IVU%NGALORE--5750 18 REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL.
YENEPOYA UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY ROAD, DERALAKATIE, ~ MANGALORE, I REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, {By ASHOK HARANAHALLI AC3; MANOPiP_R ASA' ._ FOR R1 .
M MAHABALESWAR GOUD FOR R3& R4 N K RAMESH FOR R2 _ SA SD.) ' . .. THIS WP FILED PRAYING TO;;-- A
DIRECT TIIEVRS AND THE PETITIONER TO REPORT TO THE IST EEAR IVIEE_S.CO_U'RSE EOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 20094.0 FORTIHWITH VIDE AI'\IN--D._ DIRECT TEE _ R4, TO" APPROVE THE ADMISSION OF THE PETITIONER TO THE "1ST.._.YE3AR MBBS COURSE AT THE R3, INSTITUTION FQRTHE ACADEMIC YEAR 2009» 10 AND PERMIT HER TUCONTINUE AND CO__MPI..ETE THEIR MBBS COURSE AND PERMIT HER I«*OR_T;.IE EXAMINATIONS AS AND WHEN IT FALLS DUE AS" ._I_>ER «TI~I_E'~:;REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE COURSE, 'v....WITHOUJfANY IN§'E_IuTERENCE IN HER ACADEMIC CURRICULUM. IN NO"256Q7"OF 2009 _ .:SVBETV.\IEEN' SUMAN S L?/ O SWAMINATHMV ..._AOED ABOUT 17 YRS NO.910,3 EST CROSS,29'I'H MAIN. \/ 43 4TH T BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BAN GALORE4 1 SINCE MINOR REP BY HER MOTHER PETITIONER (By Sri. T P RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY, ADV.) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA .
DEPT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY . A MEDICAL EDUCATEON ~ ' VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE REP BY ITS SECRETARY KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY 18TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD, '' . MALLESHWARAM, I3ANGALORE--,}2 -. REP BY ITS ExECU1"1VE'DI"R.ECi.?OR. I ~ YENEPOYAMEDICAL COLLEGE f ' AFFILIATED TU YENEPOYAUP-EI"VERSfHY, 1 I UNIVERSITY ROAD, I)ERALA§KA€TTE 'I .. MANGALORE;I--.8 ._ ' ..
REP BY ITS PRIEXFCIAPAL.
YENEI>OYA.I_INIIrERSITY _ UNIVERSITY ROAD DERLAKA"i'TE,. * 'f MANGALORE--575V0'I8*._ REP BY ITS REGISTRAR »--
UNIV;ERSITY ORAR*IS COMMISSION ._ BA?E1AD{IRSEiAH MARC "NEW DEI;III--A'IA~I0 002 V". _ ' REP _BY»I_T€-I SECR.E'1'ARY "IvIE'D.IICALC1o.U'I'giCIL OF INDIA POC_KET14;'$ECTOR~8 DWARKAP}-}ASE»I NEW DELE:{I--110 0'?5 _"REI> EYES SECRETARY RESPONDENTS '' -,{By SRI.M.MA1~1ABA1.ESHwAR GOUD, ADV. FOR C /R4 'SRI.B.MANO1»IA_R, GA. FOR R1 .'3RI.N.K.RA.MESH, ADV. FOR R2 ' " "SRI.MADHUSUDAN R NAIK, ADV. FOR R3 SR1.P.S.DINESH KU , ADV. FOR R5 SR1.N.KHET'{'Y, ADV. R 44 THIS WP FILED PRAYING TOU-
DIRECT THE R3 8: R4 TO PERMIT THE PESTITINR TO REPORTTO THE I YEAR M.B.I3.S COURSE FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2009910 FORTHVVIH. .
DIRECT THE R4 TO APPROVE THE ADMISSION OF THE PE:fI*mORER _ TO THE I YEAR M.B.B.S COURSE AT THE R3, INS1Im_T1ON,E'ORA. THE ACADEMIC YEAR 200940 AND PERMIT HER TC'. AND COMPLETE THEIR M.B.B.S COURS PEQRMITTIERV APPEAR FOR THE EXAMINATIONS AS AN D _ A PER THE REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE C.OURS~E, WITHOUT INTERFERENCE IN HER ACADEMIC cL;RRICUI;UM. IN WP NO 24884 OF 2009 K A EEIWEEN 1 GOPALAKRISHNAP S/O PUTTARANGAIAH _ AGED ABOUT 18 1/2 YRS" --
R/AT NO.123, MARUTHI =NII.AYA 7TH MAIN, 3RI;>_CROS.S,.v 2 '.
EIIUVANESHWARI 1'IJAGAR;fF..D}'.SARAI¢IM.JLI BANGALORE:5'75.. W €~-PETITIONER {By SE _ 1 THE STATE OE KA.RI3IATAKA"
RI3P'}?iT)"B§{ ITS SECRETARY " n I DE?E'1""3:.O1¥4'KEvIE;DICAIL 'ED.UCA'I'ION ' 'NO.'34I ,""3RD FLOOR . I ' \.zII3HAI~IA' SOE_;D}:iA ' A.__EANOAL_ORE A DIRECTOR . KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AU'I'IIORm' 18TH CROSS, IVIALLESWARAM, ' ' * «-- BAN_GALORE~8 3* I 4' _REO1STR_ AR * YENEPOYA UNIVERSITY
- I w1\_I7§'I'HYANANDA NAOAR 'HOSADARAIAIIAWE.
MANGALORE D K DISTRICT
-£5 4 THE PRINCIPAL.
YENEPOYA MEDICAL COLLEGE DERALAKA'1'TE POST MANGALORE RESPONDENTS {By ASHOK I-IARANAHALLI AG & MANOHAR ACA FOR R1 Sri N.K.RAMES}-I, ADV. FOR R2 ~_' SR1.M.:\/1AI~IAI3AI,ESwAR OOUD, ADV. FOR R3 & I g T- , "
GA SERVED) THIS WP. FILED PRAYING T02:
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DT. 3:().,7A.i3(j09.:}.SSUE;D'=-ABY«.A1IA THE R3 VIDEANXD. ' '-- --. .
DIRECT THE R3 8: 4 TO ADMIT TI<IE"~..PE'IITI-ONER R4 COLLEGE PURSUANT TO THE ALDOTTVTENT MADE.__BYA .THE;R2 AS PER TRE ANNEXURE THE ADMISSION C_ERTIE.ICATE A«S_PER5ANXwB FOR THE ACACEMIC YEAR 2002540. * ' K DIRECT TO THE COST OF' THE RROCE'ED;IN.O'S._ERCM THE R3 & 4. IN 'WP NO 26918 OF 2009 BETWEEN 1 SHOAIEB MOHAMMED4 S/O, AK_MA.L R.ASI;'A,..A_ * --.
AGED ABOUT 18* C/0. MUSTAQI AHMED, "
No.43, 8TH MAIN', _ _ NEWjGURUPPAP.TNA PALYA, ~ A. I BARRERCTIATTA ROAD, 'BAN'GAI;ORE%580 082 RETITIONER {By Sr: 1:5 RA,:.EI$:tDRA KUMAR SUNGAY, ADV.) THE S'TA'1'E OE KARNATAKA = I 'DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE. » MEDICAL EDUCATION, I ' -VIK.A_S SOUDHA, '-- IEANGAEORE, "REP BY ITS SECRETARY.
\/ 46 KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY 18TH CROSS. MALLESWARAM, BANGALOREWSGG O12.
REP BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR . YENEPOYA MEDICAL COLLEGE AFFILIATED TO YENEPOYA UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY ROAD, DERALAKATTE.
MANGALORE D K DISTRICT ~ REP BY ITS PRINCIAL YENEPOYA UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY ROAD DERALAKA'{TE, MANGALOREAEYYO 018, REP BY ITS REGISTRAR UNIVERSITY GRANTS con/In/IISSII0Nv,.':'» BAHADURSHAH ZAFAR A NEW DELHI--ll0 _002_, f 5 RBI' BY ITS SEr:R";fIjARY=a_ MEDICAL. C-OUNCIL .I_Nf)IA;--. POCKE1';-14, SECTOR-:3, ' DWARAKA, PHASE»: .._ ' NEW DELI'~:I--1«1o 0"--?5;= ._ ' REP BY ITS SEcRE:'rAI2Y, . V RESPONDENTS {BY SR1.'ASH0KVH-ARVANAHALLI AG 8:
A. AMANQIIAR ASA FOR' « IVLAHABAIEESIWIWAR GOUD FOR R3 8: R4 ":_I>» SV'DIVA;15SII«.I{LI_I\?IAR FOR R5 'A1_KI3IEI*I1{"'EoIE: R6 N K RAIvIESH;_vI?_0Ig':R2 GA SD') A * _ 'THIS w.I>. ITILEZD PRAYING 'I'O:: SDIRECT R3 8: R4 TO PERMIT THE PETFIIONER TO REPORT _ATI"IE I YEAR M.B.B.S COURSE FOR THE ACADEMIC 2009-10 F ORVVITH.
f'S';"DIRScT THE R4 TO APPROVE THE ADMISSION OF THE PETITIONER TO THE I YEAR M.B.B.S., COURSE AT THE 3*") RESONDENT INSTITUTION FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR W 47 200940 & PERMIT HIM TO CONTINUE SI COMPLETE THEIR M.B.B.S COURSE 81 PERMIT I-IIIVI TO APPEAR FOR THE EXAMINATIONS AS 8; WHEN IT FALLS DUE AS PER THE REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE COURSE, \VI'I'I~IOLIIT'»ANY INTERFERENCE IN HIS ACADEMIC CURRICULUM. , C. DIRECT R1 & R2 To GIVE A13IvIIssIoN.éi.."*I"oj'~---TE:.E"T. PE'I'I'i'IONER IN ANY OTHER MEDICAL COLLEGE/S To TI%1E.I' YEAR IvI.E.E.s COURSE FOR THE ACADEMI€~Y_EAR"2009--l0 BEFORE THE LAST DATE FIXED FOR-ADMISSVIION-I PERMIT HIM TO CONTINUE 8: COMPLETE COULRSE ASCPER REGULATIONS WI'FHOU'I' INTERFERENCE " E 7I'i<IEI'RV ACADEMIC CURRICULUM, V D. DIRECT RI 8: R2 To PAY "DO TIIE' I>.ET_ITI'oI§i'ER'V FOR I HAVING MADE HIM TO APPROACH THISnHON'BLE COURT 'WITHOUT HIS FAUL'If.\.NHATSOEVERI,'*-.0' E. GRANT SUCH oTHEI*<I{EL1EIrji.s:.As--V5i'IIIs.. _HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER FACTS CIT-:Cr.IMsT'ANCEs OF THE CASE, INTIIE Ii\i.'I'EREé3T O1§"»IJUS'1'ICEv& EQUITY. These "cI_iCtatiITg order, before the Court this day,.,_Go§_ala Gowxia, dietated the followings» IEUEEER These batC'IIV..ofO"w1Ii't petitions are filed by the E.duQI.;,;AtionIE""1"1*Ust. and another, Yenepoya UII.i\feT';sity::"»..LE{'a:'Vz:VI3eemed University), the student-
4._petitiO.-Tu1__Eers.~offisbioth the said Educational Institutions, are I' asfimitted by them on the basis of All India I Examination Conducted by it and counselling ':CoI1dIICted by them individually, the studentwpetitioners 'aIIoc:ated by the State Government under its 25% quota \/ 48 after conducting examination by the Karnataka Examination Authority (hereinafter called as the 'KEA' for short) seeking Various reliefs against the Government, University Grants Commission short}, State of Karnataka urging;.xza_riou_s""i'actsll"s,1j¢g legal contentions in support of their i.5_'eispec'ti\fe_"cas»e's,V'iiA which will be briefly stated ..the purpose of appreciatingysthe legal conyteritions urged on behalf of the a View to answer the conteritiotis {arise for our consideration.
2. 4lfacVts':lfo:1°d one of the petitioner. Deemed Univelrsit1esa__nAd.V student--petitioners of the co'l}e_ges._'f<of the usai-.d----~' universities their student» peltitpioners student --petitioners of 25% 'i'i'~A....Karnatac_l§a Government quota are chronologically
-4d_l."_fI~1a_1l"fated h'ere.in for the purpose of appreciation of their {~-l.Vvle<gal V'_cor1Ht'entions urged in these petitions with a View to , their claim andwer claims and find out as 49 to Whether they are entitled for the reliefs as prayed by each one of them.
3. It is the case of NITTE Education I. it is a Trust running its EducationalInstitutions.such as Medical, Dental, Nursing, and Management in both Graduate courses. It had on 23.02.2007 to the Cent1"a1--.t}oyernirre'nt~_under the University Grants «vidrllsanction of status of of A.B.Shetty Memorial and other NITTE Institutes H of Nursing Sciences, NITTE Gulelbin " "':~""llVl\/iemorial Institute of V.lS'cien.ces, NITTE Institute of are being run by the aforesaid "<../.itrust status of the Deemed University under Act. *~_The Central Government granted Deemed status to it under Section 3 of the UGC Act . certain terms and conditions after getting "No viiiV.:_A'V:objc'ction Certificate" from the Karnataka State 'iv 50 Government as required under guideline No.17 of the guidelines issued by the UGC for the purpose of processing applications of Educational institutiorisltiy the UGC and forward the same along with _ the Central Government for the purpose:"o'f-«hexyeircisoirigé its power under Section 3 of theft' conferment of the status of E'ee':<ried
4. It is further: '~~..stat§e.d'_': 'Educational Institutions run by NITTE is for higher studies. The" State :GoVe35nfi1er1t"'v.h.ad granted "No obj ectionBeartiificateif offfollowing Educational lnstitutioinszl' ' it i] BLDE tlriiyersity, "i'i}.__ S_ri..Si_fC1dharth'a'Acadeniy of High Education, Tumkur, ' «.AD'istrict._
iii)" ._ Hosur Road, Bangalore.
V111] Jainv--Iijni'.i'ersity, V.V.Puram, Bangalore. 'A S,ri.Deyara3' Urs Academy of Higher Education and . Research, Tamaka, Kolar.
H K.L.E.Academy of Higher Education and Research, Jakkur, Bangalore.
W 5}
5. The State Government by issuing 'No Objection Certificate' in respect of the aforesaid other Educational Institutions, which are similarly situated V. 13etitioner--institutions Without ifnposiilg arly':"£§O1TE§ii'ti(ii}.0S~',:u "
Whereas in the case of this petitionerttrutst,-:' Government has imposed certain condit-ions when it has ' issued "No objection Certificate"":.Iimposiiigseat matrix for the medical Gydtviieyvit;-S.HegdAe"Medical Academy of NITTE VUniversityA)__of the State Government is and it is discrirninatoryiin violative of Article 14 of Cons,titntioiivj'of_
6. It that the NITTE University :TFljvSt vj-rote the Statefiiovernrnent of Karnataka, Health andLFanii1y'W'e1i°are~--.Department and Department of Higher thatdiititidiihad been notified as Deemed University Section 8 of the UGC Act. The Post Graduate and 4j~.:"Under.Graduate admissions for Dental and Medicai course . the Academic year 2009-2010 would be completed 'inraccordance with the UGC guidelines in their respective \~«/ counselling the students for aforesaid lnstitutions of this University for the purpose of seat matrix. However, ingthe second notification issued by the State Govern1_i;eVr1t"'V;oi1g. 20.07.2009, K.S.Hegde Medical Academy wand: mj.¢i{i'dédl:f The same was objected by the saidv'Jl")Heeined_ its letter dated 20.7.2009 stating thatthe said',.tCcollc°ge'i'and'VR another it is AB. Shetty Menidrial Institute: l)ental Sciences did not find plyace"h'in_jiearlier seat matrix notification and therefore' agiag obliged to accommodate the 'si*3ident.s of 'C§overnfri'e.n.t7quota.
7. Trust is that it had sent a reVpreseritati0i:..g:Vteigthge"State Government and KEA stating that'inclusioni._Vofl.:_'\~their Medical College in the }_i§t "}as..._.c_ontrary t0 th€ UGC Regulations. representation it had deleted the tyvnamel of' Medical Academy from the counselling .prQ_cess. fact is evidenced from the Government seat .pos'ition'_«deciared by it on the web site as notified on it However, on 24.07,2009, K.S.l\/Iedical Academy \-/ 55 fixed by the Fee Fixation Committee which was headed by the retired High Court Judge and the same is accepted by the Trust. The Entrance Examination was condu4cted__4'_i3y the Trust on 30.5.2009. On 10.06.2009, the rm: ~ students was announced by the if counselling was notified which tool{':.pla_ce The first batch of students the" rnerjutf'0.1jAs't._;noti'fied " it earlier was admitted. In, so }_'?5%_.seat's--of the State Government are concerned,V:A'the- not give an undertaking to it It wrote to the State interested in filling up of those by the Fee Fixation Committeez'con'stituted0:.'Aby4"it:"which was accepted by it. A copy of thvegg letterfuaddrefssefd to the State Government is same was followed by another letteif"dated~:V4I--9»;06v;§§'009, after the said letters were sent to l";.Ff0tl"i_e State Govejrnment. the K.S.Hegde Medical Academy ~ i¢'g§§fas"12otified"'on 20.07.2009 for counselling the students by KVEA""for which the University has objected as stated 56
9. It is stated that it had already admitted the students counselled by it on the basis of merit list.""vvho had taken examination on All India basis in conducted at different centres on 30.05.2009 as" fee fixed by its Committee and they ha\s:emt)aidi_Vth_e the University and I year MBBS course alrelady commenced. The classes have"V'st:arted from 01.08.2009.
10. The State allocated the students with the fee fixed by is contrary to the judgment the Court in the Islamic Academy of State of Karnataka reported in ,, ifmrther, its case is that the State Govemnien*tv.',4should----have sent students under its quota on beforleA25..& but, the State Government has failed do so. it has sent 25% of its students to its College on The State Government totally ignored not
0. its students to A.B.Shetty Dental College which would clearly go to show that it is being very selective in \\+/ adopting its allocation process of sending its students under its quota to the Medical College. Further it had failed to notify both the Institutions in the first rou?n.dl~.V_of counseling of students dated 28.05.2009. . had included the Medical College; the' '* 00 notification. in the second round andafthe same"'was"'---.n{ot:
included in its Web-site on":2'3-.7.09ll'v~and_ on = 0' 24.07.2009 arbitrarily has notified__to_,t§a1locate government quota seats-. to yarious socially disadvantaged class' of it 1 1. the Trust had admitted its studefits Qrfter Examination in respect of 85% of students' andtl'ba;iance 15% is filled up by NR1 "q~1J.vOt€l.,_'F3:.'-I'El_1:(V91' State "Government by sending its students to l year MBBS Course for the academic year.'2009-i0*V'.i';yl:1o have taken up Entrance Examination _fl'..._'_égonductedvvlllby VKEA is contrary to law declared by the Apex .AC'o.'ur.tVttl'u_nder UGC Act and the Constitution of India.
-.._'lY'1erefore, they have filed the Writ Petition seeking for the hlfollouring reliefs: V 58 [a] issue a writ of mandamus or such other Writ or direction declaring that the State Governments insistence of retaining 25%} seats in first petitioner university is contrary._ to law and UGC Act and Regulations and__thye>f- Constitution of India. ' '
(b) Issue such other ------------------------------ ----'------
(c) Issue a writ of certiorari to 'quash. that part of"--~ the order where 25% 'surrender of seats is insisted upon by the Cennfal Go.vemmenti..y»*hvo had issued the original"perrnission/'affiiiation to the first petitioner ____L'1-rider order__ dated 4.6.2008 bearing" 943/2OQ7}U_,3A, marked as Annexure--D and' that ?part"-ofytiie order of the UGC granting affihation medical coflege of the NI'I.'TE» .Univei=sity'_bVe'aring NO.F 26-5/008'C_'..PPw1}i:_ dated "28.-3~.2_Q.C39 which is produced. as';fAijinexu1*e--F.._«-- I; .
12. University has also filed the writupetition-__NL).b'22i~?i13/2009.The facts pleaded .b.}*. ElI/..'$'fE'~< ; A' ..... .. V The .p'et'itiVon.der"'is a deemed University governed by ow:n"-- R-ulest: and Regulations in the matter of ddadniyisision and fixation of fee to various professional "For the academic year 2009-lO it has already V co.rid'iicted its own entrance examination for the Medical Dental Courses. The State Government and the \m/ 5'9 K.E.A. in the first Notification dated 28.5.2009 issued under the Act No.18 of 2006 have not included its Colleges for allocation of seat matrix under Government quota. The said University Yenepoya Medical College, Yenepoya D_e'n'tail_'_':vColylege-,_V Yenepoya Nursing College and Ye"nep'oya College, Deralakatte, Mangalo_r'e~...as its co.ns'tvit1ie1'1Vt...unit. * it The Central Government havi.rig.._recogniZe.dA as an institution of higher status of Deemed University .__\/ide'lwNotlificatVi~ons 27.2.2008 and 12.1.2009; *iflt.:;1 ~ '
13. 'thel:lc'ase_o'f..t:liis'University that from the date of granlting of Deemed University to the
1..-p.etitiCn5erEc'oll_egeuand«--«-other its constituent Colleges are and Regulations in the matter of g._admissi'on fixation of fee to the Post Graduate and Graduate Medical Courses, which are being coln_dVuRc't'ed by the above Colleges. The admission to the said Colleges on merit basis transparently holding All India Entrance Examination W 60 under the norms and standards provided by the UGC and from the date of granting status of Deemed University this University and its constituent are disaffiliated from the previously affiliated "
namely, Rajiv Gandhi University ofv.H'ea.1.th short hereinafter called as p
14. Further, it is that Government and KEA thwhatsoever either in the matter of to the Medical Course orfixatiofin of feesVA'evf'e_n'o"tl'ierwise it is a well settled» down by the tlourt in the case of TM A Pat' Vepérfeufi'-«iH'v2.it){)lé"..V(8i:7SCC 481 and the same is "A.:ad.emy case reported in 2003 (6) _an:_d :v4f9;:i:5l;;I.narndar case reported in 2005 {6} 53y_7'h'instofa:fA.i:as Minority Institutions and Unaided .4h_lf_finstitutions}"there is no power for the State Government i.ts'4"quota of students in the above said courses of Educational Institutions. it can be only gnderstood possible c ual agreement agreed ()1 between unaided Private Educational institutions and State of Karnataka as held by the Apex Court in P.A.Inamdar's case at paragraphs 126 and 128.
15. In View of the law declared by in the aforesaid case the State sGove1"nnient-.has,_been7 entering into consensual agreement"-.withythe" pr_i-'vggittefi Educational Institutions as under of 2006 on the basis of consensualtaigreyelnententered into between the State and Institutions the periodical 5n'c3ti1l"'ice:tio:ied': for the Medical coui'se--::_a_te thew State Government n0tifyingVVi1,1n'd'er the Act of 13 of 2006. The fee structureudto VVbe4V'Acl1arged to its students under V4.-vs.ectio_n5::.5: the"--'A,ct__,.v number of seats available as C~_overn.mentCse'atts in a given year. Pursuant to such seat'.nratrvixjfiflotification and allocation of its quota l:=.._.4st.udents..admissions are made by the State Government _its agency namely KEA. In the .instant case, College run by this Deemed University through S"-__t'l'ieir associations CET and counselling has been made W 62 and the students a.re admitted in its Medical College on the basis of their merit rank arranged in the ranking list. Since there is no consensual agreernent.._i;et'W4eei2V. this University that the State Government _& it under the Act No.13 of 2006, t;hel"Statle_ could not have allocated the sea.ts._ proidded the Karnataka Educational institutions._l[P*rohil;;itilon of Capitation F ee} Act,
16. The furthver is that All India Entrance by it on All India basiS.to_the been admitted in its Colleglebyé' in different parts of the countryl"anld., the basis of merit ranking v4.a.s'sign_e€*i to'theml"and____tlvie students have been admitted 'the' the academic year 200940. The them are:
.o[a] Iss-Lie a writ in the nature of certiorari V vquashing the impugned Notification V"-'dated 20.7.2009 in NOEFW 473 MP8 2008 insofar as it notifies the petitioner Universitys constituent unit my Yenepoya Medical College, Mangaiore, in the seat matrix for allocation of seats notifying 25 W 63 seats of its intake as Government quota seat and
(b)Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other appropriate,"---"» ' writ, directing the State G0vcrnment_.not* -1~ to select and send candidates for t" % admitted to Medical and Dental e'ou'rsfes"'- ' pursuant to the Notification dated V 20.07.2009 in its College: and,to*,reca'II'"
and re-allocate some 0the_r'-_co11eg'c_ "if such an admission sis-..__a1ready grant-ejd.;.,__
(c) Issue such 0thei'...writc;i"or'd:erVjoijdirection as deemed fit "«-utrgiiig 2.j_jvari'oxt1s_ legal contentions. "
17. The aiddtitional grounds is also filed. namely to quash Condition Vizat' : the Notification dated 27.12.2008 produced' atAAn'n"eXure~"A" to its writ petition and a1s,*o'3'«:.co_;n,di_tion"at---.--S1'.No.6 of the Notification dated at AnneXure--"B" as and without authority of law. .:d_f_~.A.ite:fnativelyj; to declare those conditions as void and 'jflntot on the said University. W 65 the University on 15.6.2009 called the students for counseling on the basis of the ranking assigned to them. The first 55 students opted for MBBS course on 3 These batch of studermpetitioners formed partand of 27 candidates. It is the case offldthese:
NITTE is a deemed university under4'the*..UGCyl.}',xc.t; Q' The 'V same is an independent universlityllinot gVov..rer1i1~ed.l'i:§)y the Karnataka Professional Ediicati«_5n {Regulation of Admissions and Fixation__ofl Efee): S>pecial'»~:l.1E'rovisioris Act, 2006.
19. .he successful in the examinationrconducteid' did not take any seat in any University. If the said notiagliven--~«seats in this college, they would haveapplied'--vand'lgot--'seats in other colleges or universities.
is 1'1.ovvl'ltoo_ them to approach other colleges or
-..."_universities _ for admission. Therefore, the State on its own conduct, not entitled to aliocate H 'V:..st1id.e'n.ts under its quota to this college through KEA as the medical college of the aforesaid deemed university was not lv' 67 The University had issued an admission notification inviting applications for the academic year 2009-10 in its medical colleges for 100 seats of MBBS course of 41/2 years with one year internship in various newspapers incl-nlding"~ Indian Express dated 21.3.2009. Pursuant 2' notification the above said studenta :pleti9ti'oner_s the said course Within the last date fixvedp ill the as 25.4.2009. in the said notificatlilonficalendar jleventsllare fixed as hereunder: 90 it A 0 "Issue of Applications Last date for3"'relc:eipt = 25 42009 Issue 2 . 27.4.2009 Date of " 12. 5.2009 Publicationlotlariswer i4.9.2009 ._ " for_.receiptlof ' Objectrions'/.iAVnforming discrepancies 18.5.2009 Rank List 15.6.2009 Commeiacemeizt of counselling 28.7.2009 if I..ast:_.date for admssion 30.7.2009 68 The petitioners appeared for the entrance examination conducted by the said university on 12.5.2009. It had published the merit list of the Candidates. It is stated by the student-petitioners in the aboveiiaidg:"ivi'iti"'*-*1.' * petitions that their ranking was assigned' and 84436. They were called for in the order of merit as per ra:ikii1g.V "had eounselied the candidates petitioners and they were selected and assiglnedl They have paid the admissionliee with the demand draftsf paid the fee to the College are{:also_Aprlod_uVe'ed "t.hese_' writ petitions in support of their clailmq alt' of the aforesaid student- petitione:js"that orily_:ai°ter' their admission and paying fees to they learnt that the State Government has a1loeateld_«lA of students through KEA to the Yenepoya College. They further learnt that the said loeing declared as deemed university under of the UGC Act, has addressed letter dated ' to the college seeking information regarding seats to be allocated to the si\\id Medical Coliege by it. The t./ 69 University also addressed a letter dated 9.5.2009 informing the KEZA that medical college comes within the deemed university and it is not bound to surrender any seats inlthe course to be filled by second respondent and not to allocate any student to the Yenepoya mediciai college-it "
for the academic year 20092010. The are seeking the following relief.
a) Grant a writ of mand__amus the'--respondents not to displace the 'petitioners jéfronfi the first year MBBS course in the riiedi.cal college" for, the academic year 2009-lO; ' 1 ' '
21. Tlie allocated under the State Medical College which comes ii1--1.de~r '{:iniVersity, have filed W.P.Nos.
p.(l7idln.}-------arid student-- petitioners allocated T_State:_;Go'v.er'nment to the Yenepoya college run by lihfivthe Yeiiilepoyalliniversity have also filed W.P.Nos.22628- ("E':cln.]. Apart from these batch of petitions, there are'oth_er:.individuai writ petitions filed were allocated to the abcoyeésaid colleges from the Karnataka State Government llil'~--.TVi"qtiota. Those Writ petitions are heard along with these \l-»/ 70 batch of writ petitions. The facts in the nut shell are stated as hereunder :-
The KEA is the agency of the State Govt. for {the purpose of conducting CET for admission and students to various professional under gradu_at_ev_"_'and.A_1:po_stl' graduate courses (Medical, Dental, respect of the Government seats based' on .Vt'rie.Vlniarl:{s"l obtained by the candidates. The clondfucting Central Examination test.._.":'*everly 1; been allocating students under to various colleges based _ by the students in courses. It is the case of these the academic year 2009 the brochure/ application form for adrnission of students to the professional cours.el'i.n re«s'pect;"'of undergraduate courses of medical, dental and "eng"1neering and other courses mentioning the colleges, and the number of available Government each college including the medical colleges run by V b'otlithe aforesaid universities for first year MBBS course for the academic year. T he State Government of Karnataka iv 71 had also issued a notification dated 20.7.2009 fixing the additional seat matrix for the first year MBBS course for medical colleges, including the medical colleges run by the deemed universities, showing the Government sea'ts.:"«as"--VV 25% of students out of the total intake of * each college. it is stated by the:'rr'a»fores'aidV1"
petitioners that they have appeared 7th May, 2009 Conducted by the Eiflkfiypseeking 'Vito MBBS course in the colleges..V.shofs:«'m 'published in the brochure--curn-app1icationA for the academic year 2009.:'E0. iffhe .::*esu'lti".j_wfasijannounced on 25.5.2009.i: 'condticted its first round of counselling BDS and other under graduate glcourses'; ., V_ii'here;:1l'ter, the KEA on 14.7.2009 infornied that casual round of counselling would_ to fill up the seats in the notifiedi'""'col'lVeges'. The counselling was postponed to and the petitioners eligible for admission he-4"_V.:_aplpearedibefore the KEA on 24*" and 2597- Based on their ' A rneritflranking and category all of them have been allocated medical seats in the edical colleges of deemed 72 universities for the first year M1388 and they were directed to report to the Principal of the respective medical coliege on or before 8.8.2009. The KEA has also prescribed tuition fee at the time of admission"-lancljthey H were also issued admission orders. the writ petitions the petitioners have stated th€lI'gV1'.'ELI1l{I':-'1g:"'..f;tI1(i t:lViv_eA"date appearance for the counselling. 'i'h'e. collected; of Rs.42,500/-- being the tuition.__fee eth.ei=..fees the first year course and in their favour been given. The same are prod_uce;d-. as to.:l36.
22. 'theltuition fee in respect of SC and by the KEA but they themselves uhalve"..to" pay respective colleges for their their'fi;--i'ther case that in the admission order.s"is_sL2e:d there is a specific direction to the of, respective colleges of the deemed
-. .f.f'.1'i%>'f"-'1i'\2l~ersities the student shall be admitted immediately "=.to-- the 'I year course in terms of the admission orders and if the petitioners were advised to approach the ,,,..:jinisdictional Deputy C oner for enforcement of the '--3 La.) admission orders issued by the KEA in terms of the admission rules.
23. Pursuant to the admission orders issued tofthe student~ petitioners they approached the colleges on 2583 and 2631", met the respective t the colleges and requested them to jthe orders for which they asked the student"petitioner's'V_to_V for reporting to the colleges on 2009*' the reason that they are awaiting the Management in that regard. The KEAV had-fixed the last date for reporting' §oi1~ege§. They approached the collegelisgon which date the colleges instead a to report in terms of the by the KEA, they issued an of the students informing that the vt>"'---said are conferred with the status of deemed ~.l.l'.j'j;;niversity the State Government has no authority to ""--.Vdalloca'te_students under its quota of seats to the colleges the deemed universities and admission of 100 tilt'--qstudents intake fixed by the MCI in the colleges are 74 already admitted and therefore, their admission would amount to excess intake fixed by the MCI. It is also stated that in this regard they had written to Government and assured that communication "would bet sent to them after hearing from the state"G0yern.;n1erttc, endorsement issued to the students are also proyduvced V the writ petition. Since the lcsolilegesx of universities have refused tlreportinglvto the classes for first year MBBS they were constrained to vrj:r::3:rrimissioner of Mangalore V representatives and requested orders issued to them by the LKEA. commissioner though received their reliareseynhtationt"has not taken any action in of representation is also produced along Writ petitions.
245 It.f'is'further stated that. on verification made by iaetitioners students and their parents it was found the colleges to which admission orders were sent by KEA to the colleges are conferred with the status of ,1,R;.y,,dt§emed university aft ining no objection certificate 75 from the State Government with a specific condition that the institution shall admit 2.3% of the students sent by the KEA for each academic year out of total intake of students fixed by the MCI to their colleges. In this stated that it had come to their notice that_.t.hereV all memorandum of understanding Ibetiweent Government and the colleges -.__.run7__b'y universities agreeing to admit a of' students allocated by KEA out of lsituzdents tixed by the MCI but they 'betitioners to report to theirlattend classes not even a single lth Government quota seats sent by KEA} llfiteforejilg"theatiction of the Medical colleges and theggiieemed "»L;n'iversities is in utter violation of the Znterrns._and:"'l.icon'ditions of the 'No Objection Certificate' Government in their favour that rn.emorai3durri'of understanding and also the terms and eo'nditio.ns'lrnentioned in the notification issued by the I cenaai Government under Section 3 of the UGC Act. \v 77 categories based on their merit to the first year MBBS Course. The said medical coiieges run by the deemed Universities agreed to accommodate 25% of the seats to.-the State Govt. at the time of obtaining NOC to fulfil its obligation. They have now refused the -- reporting to their colleges though c1asses'for7the' already commenced from 3.8.2()()9 an.d:"they inaden"
admission of other students to the:MBBS afterddthe admission of 25% quota State Goyernment allotted by the and _se'i'nt_ ivorders to the Colleges. -The pet4i't§oi1ers--.'be1ng'°poor'=-merited students belonging to *§)éaev}_{?«Va_rd classes of the society are not in a their studies if they are not perrnitte.d to ,r_e'p'ort' for admission in the aforesaid Znooyllegelsugof ijeemed universities. For no fault of them they" hétV'_e«iApern1itted to attend the classes from 3/8/2059 the management of the coileges and they be 'losing one precious academic year. It is stated and practicais are quite essentiai in medical Course. Therefore, e approached this Court 78 seeking for the reliefs as stated supra. The above said batch of Writ petitions are seeking the following reliefs 2- I] Issue a writ in the nature of rnandamus"fl_'«_f" _ directing respondentwEducational Institutions_jal.____c' __' run by the aforesaid both the NI'E'l'E dee;medygV"'vi_" ' University and Yenepoya (hereinafter ca.lle_d'Vl.as-g' ._ deemed University for short] topermit 5them*.t'o ' report to the I year MBBS :;_'(301:l.lf,Sp€} for academic year 2009- 10.
11} Direct all the resp'ec,tive" aEd-uc'ati7on''' 0' Institutions the deemed universities toapprove the admission of th_e rsaid st'u'dent 'petition'e'i*s~i':o the first year i\/{BBS *-course in their"~respective education Institutions for 'the' a_cfadjerriic year 2009-10 and .permit~-'themV----yto 'continue and complete the.i1"«Mi3BE3' co11_rse«.yan,d.VVto 'appear for examinatio:r13as5a'nd when it falls due; as per the regulations goir¢'ffiving"'VithAé* ._cour.se= Without any interfer__enc'e.in' their a_ca_derni_c curriculum and III] VOR"aiternatjivelyldirect respondents 1 and 2-State' .._Governm'eAnt_ the KEA to give admission", to the', petitioners to any other med;ic'al.collegeVs"to th.e first year medical course for': 'the.__yce,ar 2009:..1«O before the date fixed for 0' adrnission "and permit them to continue and .'c0"mpl'etei jthe~--.course as per the regulations w'i~ft'__l1outW..v._ir1te'i"ference with their academic cLiri*iculanii_ and IV) yljirect the respondents State Governrnent KEA to pay cost to each one of the petitioners for having made them to approach "th'is'lCourt for no fault of them and grant such _ cétherj-relief or reliefs as this Court deems fit in V' the interest and justice and equity. 79
26. It is contended that by Yenepoya college and its university the student petitioners allocated to the Yenepoya medical college under the State Government quotaVlvvas_ only provisional and subject to the final orders _ Court in W._P.NO.21693/2009 filed 0;; b24.7;200:Q:'_vvby:the V':"
said Yenepaya deemed university correctness of the seat matrix n'oltifi.catioin l and sought for quashing saIIi¢..lui;.igi1'igZvariousipgrounds. The said writ petition was this Court for preliminary hearing same came to be dismissed. a memo on 10.8.2009.<:
27. he counsel Sri.Vijayshankar appearingon belhahthe University placed strong 1§§1iancVe'i{p¢ti th.e_ phrase "the UGC has to secure views from»thelS'Lat'e.V(3-love.i'nment" contained in Clause 17 of the by the UGC for the purpose of H ivproicessingzthe application that will be filed under Section 3 Act. It is contended that it has no statutory \/ ll law as they are Wt the regulations framed by the 86 UGC in exercise of its power under Section 26(d] of the UGC Act and the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the UGC at the time of considering the interim prayer by this court in these batch of writ 19.8.2009 had submitted that obtaining of V' Certificate' from the State Government institutions of the trust is not .req_uiredafor CO1i1f€]'f'i'}'1_CI11L_:'§Ofh status of deemed university under:thle'U§}C had placed reliance upon the (lourt in the case reported of his legal Contention Act by the parliament-iin power under Article 246 of the Entry 66 of List I of VII Spchedulpeétherefolrea Plctl.l;lo.l8/O6 was enacted by the 25 list 111 of VII schedule, the Cent'i*al'l".Act"rri~u_st.::'prevail over the said State enactment, Vflvlvith regard"-.l:to"'the standards in institutions for higher respect of whom the status of deemed is conferred by the Centrai Govt. in exercise of ' itsistatutory power under Section 3 of the UGC Act, which power is within the e jurisdiction of the Central 8] Government. Therefore, the 'No Objection Certificate' was not required to be obtained by the T rust from the State Govt. when the application was submitted by it to Central Government for grant of status of confei'rnente-laofr0"? 0' deemed university upon its educational"iristitr1tions;~ V
28. The UGC has to subrrlit li't.sll'opiniaon];to Central Government for exerciseloaf itslpovver }under Section 3 for grant of conferment o%.f't.he.'pideerned university upon such Educational in,s'titui:,ion's.,"»,for.lw1i'i'c'h it need not ask institutionstou objpectioln certificate" from the State GOV€FI'1'I'I1'3fll';:.. securing the views from it for "__lo.pir1ion to the Central Government for coynferinentlll of status of the deemed .fuf1iversvi':ty~ upon thell"Ed"«cational institutions of the trust. reliance of another decision of the C it'a...vSuprem_eViCoi.1.rtc:the case of Jaya Gokul Education Trust vs -- Conirnissioner and Secretary to Govt. Higher Department reported in 2000(5) SCC 23}, in sujphpolrt of his legal submission that the Apex Court has the provisions of Section l0(k) of the All India \\~«/ 82 Council for Technical Education Act of 1987 herein after called as AICTE Act examined with reference to Section 9(7) of Mahatma Gandhi University Act enacted by the«j'Statte".,A' Legislature fell for consideration before the Apex "
regard to the phrase "views" used byv.t'he-«Sta-the in the Statue does not amount to app'i<ov'a1tt'as hel_d~at«. 22 of the said case. The Apex erefe.re'ijic'e4to"'the above said provisions and -the plirase' eXa_minted'"a1*1'd held that merely
29. The ieemee Seniotr.:'!3ourisjelVvsubtrnits that the phrase "to State QOVe1_nment..
as contained the Guidelines framed by the use fofthe Section 3 of the UGC Act d'o"n_ot of 'No Objection Certificate' from' :"--Sta4t'e:'"Government by the Educational tit'«i»I1stituti_ons trust and that cannot be the basis
-..t.t'_1';9or"..the UGC to render its opinion to the Central t'---.G~ove_rmjn:ent to exercise its statutory power for Vttconferément of status of Deemed University upon the ,ya/Afiffiducationai Institutions Trust. Further, he 83 submits that at the time of obtaining 'No Objection Certificate' from the State Government an undertaking given by the Trust to it regarding seat matrix to-"be allocated in its Educational Institutions under V. Government Quota in favour of Scheduled:
Scheduled Tribe and other ec.onorni_cally' sections of the society is not binding'«.upon "as the? it same is not supported by of the UGC Act. 'i'herefore;_'"Clause.l§f.the 'guidelines with regard to "securingV__th.e the State Government" toil' terms and notification issued under Section 3 in'respect:loAi.A'fie'n_tVal".College, which are made applicable "to. issued in favour of Medical in law. Therefore, he submits that"'is'Vv'~I'i'ot binding upon it. Hence he has l"i:--gVrlequestSe*d grant of the additional prayer by the said portion of the Clause 17 viz., "UGC to l"i..;sé?C§.u'iiel"the views from the State Crovernrnent" and c"ons'equent1y strike down the terms and conditions uliienumerated in the notifications issued by the Central \V 84 Government in favour of the Educational Institutions conferring the status of Deemed university as void abinitio in law.
30. Another legal contention H learned Senior Counsel is that exercisle'of'powef»by_the Central Government under Se.ction4"3:'o.f theg'.."U(}C which Act is enacted by Parlianient» frorn' Iiiist-I of VII Schedule of the Indiauvvis not subject to or controlled the State Legislature relaij_ing§»r:t'o .:of"'L-i--sit--III of the V11 Schedule " :71: Q 'K"a1vr'1'ataka Professional Educational: institntnilonsv.ifiegulation of Admission and Determination"~» of _}%'-.ees_) 2006 and Karnataka :.'}5rofess:io'na1. ZE.duc'ati'o'1'1al Institutions [Regulation of of Fee] (Special Provisions) Act, °=e:2oois 'age: 2006}. The power exercised by the "iii.-Ti,"VCe1'1tral Government under Section 3 of the UGC Act is in..S'its-..e,.§<clusive domain and it is not subject to the 'approval of the State Government. Therefore, the seat "matrix notification and allocation of 25% of seats by the 'iiw 87 and KEA for the sake of arguments without conceding that they can allot students under its quota to its colleges.g'a-ngd such students will have to pay the fees fixed by "
which was accepted by the universities. There__fore, K fixed by the State Government students who are to be admitted in theghcollegevet.i)elern'ed* University and the Act 13 of 20(l)l6.e:does not.applyljfor the academic year 2009--201OLa~s en.act.ed for the sole purpose of keeping the of 2006 in abeyance for the a_catleIn.icyear"20Q6.§2'0O'7"only.
83. It c'antende'di'-'hy him that if, the intention of to include the college of the Deemed Unive1'sity_, Lin: seat matrix it should have done_ ir2l:r._lthe.rV: first of counselling itself. All the for the counselling of KEA seats l V7-...wei"e aware-.V.that the college of the Deemed University
-...l'_;jwas'..,not being counselled. Therefore, it was made to it was not included in the CRT counselling Wlpr0.VC_ess and further made submissions on the principle of 'eqnitabie estoppel that State Government cannot thereafter \~x/ 88 proceed once again and send its students to its college for admission in the course for the academic year.
34. In View of the law laid down by the do ' in BHARATI VIDYA PEETHA AND OTHERS"'V"4(1§.}3;fil\»I.§;p UNIVERSITY] VS. STATE OF (2004) 11 SCC 217, it is contend_ed.._by Court has laid down the x q the conferment of Deemed Uniuersilty -Educational Institutions under_S-.e;cti'on is a Central enactment not seats to the State Government: is not required to oblige and State Government under its quota. of the KEA under 25% quota c,ontravenlti'on"olf the said judgment of the Apex is contended by him that the said orders. 'sent by the KEA in relation to the
-.l_l.l'stu_de,nts under Government quota are not binding upon {~-the College of the Deemed University.
C With regard to the disaffiliation of the Medical 'College of the NITTE Uriiversity as per the condition l\\t/ 249 incorporated in the notification issued by the Central Government, it is contended by the learned Senior Counsel that Section 2(a) of the RGUHS Act, 1994 defines college' as 'a college or institution affiliated} M University in accordance with the gstatutes.f. , jCl'R..GUI*IS [Grant of Permanent Affiliationwto Coi_leges/ and Withdrawal of such Affiliation) prescribes the procedure for,graiitlllgyfiQalfifianéfit'"affiiiation to Medical College run by vCajrid_'..affiliation of this Coilege is not. was for one calendar year, renewed'"'frorn.'fyeari'to; year. The status of Deemed -- [upon the educational institutions Trust vide order dated 2{l.O3.2QQ9'; the affiliationliof its Medical College to RGUHS ie-eeeseei. ivnfanyevent, the nouns as on 25.08.2009 has issued. Certificate' for Withdrawal of affiliation'; regard, the learned Senior counsel has .1 'ireliance upon the Division Bench decision of High Court in DR.R.SHIVARAMAN Vs. MGR 9 AU')EnillI§fEiRSITY reported in AIR 1999 MAo.s2. Therefore he ::_has stated that the cont urged by the learned 90 Advocate General Mr.Ashok Haranahalli and the learned counsel iVlr.Rajendra Sungay for student-petitioners that the college is not disaffiliated from the RGHUS University is wholly untenable on facts and in law. He further subrnits that the decision of the INAMDAR's case referred_to'*s.1;~}';§'_ra with all fours supports the case of the petiticn_erVV'1'r:i1st, 3"
with regard to the allocation of Govezrnrnenft S basis of terms and conditions insth.e notlifi_catione.'a'1'e wholjiy it inapplicable to its college.
36. Further the leairredy Mr.Vijaya Shankar with reference to='th'e [iv] of the notification, issued under Section 3 of. of the Deemed University shalt the seats to the State Government Central Government has rheirely the"'said.condition in the notification and not-._reduirectVttjaiiripose such condition by the Central vorlb$y.e:'the UGC under Section 3 of the UGC alcondition could not have been imposed by the Government in view K the w laid down by the Supreme Court in BHARATI VIDYA PEETHA Case referred supra and therefore incorporation of the said condition"-.by the Central Government in its notification issued of the Deemed University has to be read d0wn__b'y._::ai1ovy?i1iSg' these writ petitions.
37. Mr. M.R.Naik, learned. Senior if on behaif of the Yenepoya affiiiated the University has reiterated' 'VSs'sjbm'i--ssionsvSimvade on behalf of NYITE UniversiVtyV:C' :_the aforesaid submissions of the learned iS'enio'r.._Counse1 on behalf of NITTE additional prayer and the other prayers jtlafitetitions filed by the college and the Deemed.u'niye.rsi~tyf'iiiherefore, there is no need for «to hisA'n'1e'g--a1" submissions separately in this judgnient.a. . V Srifidaya Holla, learned Senior Counsel .i:ap'pea1*ing for the student ~ petitioners of the Medical Collefgeff run by the NITTE University has adopted the ' su.brnissions made by the Senior Counsel appearing for the V." = S NITTE University.
\\w/ 92
39. In support of the same proposition of iaw, he has placed reliance on another judgment reported in 2 SCR 365 in the case of UNION or' INDIA M/S. INDO--AFGHAN AGENCIES 1:ro_,i fi_'herefbre;'_'iearn'ed V: * Senior Counsel submits that the petitione_ris'i¥ st:
are admitted in the coliege basis Entrance Examination conducteid---fby_ the Fieemed University the students of rrierit after their counselling.' the State Government 'its of 25% seats through heV"-sluhrriitsfithat they are entitled for the reliefas petitions.
40;' 'S-ri.Rv.N'.N_ar'asiinha Murthy, iearned Senior "C.otins.ei on behalf of the petitioners/ students adrnittedi«hVy:thve iifenepoya Medical College and its Deemed U-niversity the basis of All India Entrance Examination the conditions enumerated in the notification the Centrai Government under Section 3 of the Act regarding conferment of status of the Deemed University, upon the institutions run by the said University \\m/ 94 Government quota to the Yenepoya college which is legally not permissible in law.
41. Sri.B.N. Nanjunda Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of some of the Yenepoya College in W.P.No.22396/M2009 10/2009 who are already admitted the basis of their AIEE, adopts the*s_u-bmislsions 'bymtl31e if aforesaid learned Senior Counsel on the educational institutions and has further submitted that afterthve 'theft-::eats available with it, frornfthe qiiota se'ats"lallocated not availed by them. Allthose allotted in favour of the 25 students of Gov'ernin.er'V.=.tlq_uota to the colleges to avoid the controversy sin these cas'e's'.V 42l.'____ Haranahalli, learned Advocate VVTjil(}enerallhas--.':placed strong reliance upon the terms and ._c'ond_itionS enumerated in the notifications issued in favour 'educational institutions affiliated to the Deemed tfniversities and submits that unless and until the ~r::/onditions are fulfilled by them, th s of the Deemed 95 Universities should not have been admitted and further has placed strong reiiance upon the conditions incorporated in the notifications in so far as the medical college of ___the NITTE University and further contends that college is disaffiliated from RGHUS the status ' University in respect of its Educationa1"1nstitutiofis.--Vjwiil flint come into force. The contention A' Counsel on behalf of the Deemedv._:U~npiverVsity' its students that the co.nditions*:"incorporated 'in the notification have no statutory' is only untenable. The. learned: the legal contentions: v»_oti.yt1i.e.'1)VVeemed Universities and their studentsw»vvi'thV law laid by the Supreme Court inéthe case..I\/iQM};3ENAKSHI AND OTHERS vs. AQARWAL dVu{b'aAo} BY ms. AND OTHERS repoirtedin [:ioo'p6}V".'7---scc 470.
43. the above submission was made by the {~.'_vvVle.ai"inedp with reference to the said legal principles H down by the Apex Court, the learned Senior counsel V"v.:_T'orfbehalf of the Deemed Universities have requested \vt/ 96 this Court to consider their additional prayer made in the amendment application which were not pressed into service at the time of making their submission amendment applications The amendment ap-:p.licatVionls.'ll'? V' were heard together along with the:~Writ«petitioniisfli reference to the said amendment alppli-cations. '*l.earn_edvl"
AG placed strong reliance lonnthe the Constitutional Bench of they Stirpre'melll:Conrtlllifirrthle case of SANJEEV coma Mitts i\,eg_. MILLS L'I'D.. reported I relied upon paragraph reference to additional Ed'u..c_ational Institutions in the amendmentllapplication .. supported by Valid groun.ds_:to q11ashl"t.hleVlreleVant portion referred to supra of the guidelines and terms and c0ndit.ion_s Vvenlnmerated in the notifications by urging vaiid gron.n;{ls; 4' in so far as Yenepoya University is are not entitled to get those conditions granting additional prayer having regard to hall"--.._it's.iHconduct that on 24.07.2009 it had filed w.p. ::_No.216'73/2009 seeking for quashing the seat matrix 97 notification dated 20.07.2009 including the students belonging to Yenepoya College in the seat matrix for allocation of 25% seats of Government: quota came to"-.be dismissed as withdrawn by it on 10.08.2009_....__i'sll:'oerrsgV. more strong ground against the said Universityito the additional. prayer.
44. With reference to'll.th.e_ st'atVem_errtl'*:of--~ declared by the SupremegCou1ft--------lt1'~Sa.njeevl'COKEE M1118 case by the Constitutional' l_ea;rned Advocate General submits 'gvalid grounds urged by their amendment applications.'slelekingflfor the phrase referred to above ugnderllll"cla'u.se-_ the guidelines in the cannot"be"granted by this Court allowing V l_'_.
Further he placed strong reliance upon the .. V .1 of Rule 2(1) and 2(3) of the Rules regarding u"§def"ir1itior1 of "Government seats" and "the of the Karnataka Selection of Candidates Vlffor Admission to Government seats in Professional \\u/ 98 Educational institutions Rules, 2006 (hereinafter called as Rules) framed by the State Government in exercise of its power under Section 14 of the Karnataka Educational Institutions [Prohibition of Capitation":
Act 1984. The Government of Karnataka it rules for the purpose of regulation o'f"th'e. and the seat matrix. Rule 2(1) and Ll'o)d:1*.edadsd.ti:§.iis: '~ dd "2{1) -- 'Government seats' iiieans all'*the-s_'eat's in Government and University'».coi.lege, 95% of the seat in aided .courses in ;i3riv..ate Aided Engineering ColleggS----.._?/ind l*8()*?/oi. o'fffthe--., seat in private aided Indian Systernl of .Medici_n.e and Homoepathy colleges'"andfsuch.of '.the* seat in unaided, ;"x4ni1nority_ 2: and '--.'*n.o.n--minority professional "'edi1Cja.ti'o.na1' -.ins't1tutions filled by the CET cell 0_n;.V_the"cionsensus between the G"o_ver.nment.'" and 3 Private Professional Educational Insti"tutio'ns and notified by the Government as. VG-overnrnent seats."
" V' 2[o_)"*~ ;_the.. 'Institution' means any professional . , educational«-institution or coliege affiliated to any' U1":iver'sit'y".. and carrying on the activity of '~irnpartin'[g».__ education in Medicine, Dentistry. iii.dianV.Sys.i;ems of Medicine, Hornoeopatohy, V Engineering, Technology and Architecture coursesi"
He further submits that the allocation of on each one of the coiieges of the Deemed :*V.j_:d"University are with in the definition of the 'government \./ 99 seats' as defined under Rule 2(1) and definition of 'institution' as defined under Rule 2{nl of the Rules. These two colleges run by the Deemed University"-.alsfo--.,A fall within the definition of institution in definition of Rule 2(0)': Therefore,""he .Vth,a.t unless the conditions enumerated a'in"t_he nfotificaticsrisf' issued by the Central Governrriellntigunderg of the UGC Act are fulfilled thyern 'thelllstatusf of Beemed University granted in their.i.'fa\'/our come into force. Therefore;'«l_h;e sub_mits'-.the eoncensual agreement refefrredstov. case at paragraphs 126 8: squarely apply to the facts colleges of both the '{lniVersgit§ileVs;. he submits that the reliefs and the additional prayer in the a;p'§liCa.tion Cannot be granted including the releifs 'praysed by the si'.'udent.-peti_tioners who are
-..yVass'igr1e'd.._to their Colleges of the Deemed universities. Sri.l\/Ianohar, learned AGA made his fl"..___gs'uhrnissions on 24.09.2 ont.ending that the :00 guidelines framed by the UGC for the purpose of Section 3 of UGC Act for professiona} medical colleges and other institutions for the purpose of processing applications of the Educational institutions considering and conferring status of f"C1\3'€fVi733,CV':Ci;._"*. universities upon them under Section 3 Act"
and therefore they have got statutoryZ-forces!4...F--urther;q;if he submits that the Educational sought the status of deemed arciefquired to obtain the 'No Objectioil""Ceiftificvat'e.*f the State Government for the.'.purpo'se» gett,'1_ng'Vthfeisstatus under Section 3 of the Educational institutions of NITTE rand. coiiege at the time of ohtain1ng.t<No Objefctiofi Certificate', from the State G~0vernnieni.f¢h_av--e given an undertaking and executed Merrior'andua'i'vv..__o{""Understanding in its favour and tvhereforfe Central Government has imposed
-..:fc'o'ndi'tLiio.ns in the notifications on the advice of the the same are bi pon them.
[GI
48. Sri.B.Prarnod appearing for the Central Government submits that under Section 3 of the UGC Act, the notifications issued by it in exercise of;"'its statutory power conferring the status of n University upon the aforesaid Educational run by both Deemed Universities recommendation and advice n1__adef'by'i--they.vU{}Cf' ai'31d* therefore it has incorporatevdV.V.:._V'vcoynditiongf the notifications regarding "related matters. Thereforethe in the notifications by the in law and not binding on the conditions of the npotificatigon "of such conditions by them, fipeemedifltlfniversities wili come into force, otherWis_e«A 'cannot claim that they are Deemed Unyiversuitiesvipforfi the purpose of UGC Act and they can that seat matrix notifications issued by the it applicable ta £02
49. Sri. Dinesh Kumar. learned counsel appearing for UGC submits that in these batch of writ petitions at the time of considering interim without receiving instructions from his c1ient.."herg.has C' submitted before this Court t;'~.iat'"?Nop .;Obje_ction Certificate' was not required_.t_o be o'btaineVd,_"by'~ petitioner Educational Institutcioris Government for the of itsopinjion to the Central status of Deemed of its statutory d';§ui~'the1~ submits that the guideii_ne_s.A for the purpose of Section 3 of process the applications of the Educational V_V_institutions that would submitted to the ce.r1trai:_Ggvovvernrraent for grant of the status of under the UGC Act. Clause 17 of the guidelinaesétprovides for obtaining the views from the '*-Government referrable to obtaining of 'No ___0Cbje'ction Certificate' from the State Government by the uEdHu'cationa1 Institutions who had prayed for grant of the status of "Deemed University" 'under Section 3 of W 193 the UGC Act. Further he submits by placing strong reliance upon Section 26(d} read with 2(i) of the I.-If-3fC Act, regarding the regulations to be framed by K purpose of implementation of the Act. statutory force as it is in relation status upon the Educational,i_nstituAtions olr-'I institutions, which may be recog"n.i_sed underfilatiise 2(1) of the UGC Act. which ::1:;gfis:.'V' I "University" means aH_UnviVersity"'established or incorporated~..by gor uI'1;der"«.a'--,Cen't«ral Act, a Provincial lj;1;9i'ct.'or€;_a StAat'e""Act, and includes ;'an"_\_;._Vs'u&;hV 'i.n.st'itu't_ion as may, in consultati--on'5._ ;f_ with the University concern'ed_,";- be "'re'cogn'i's'ed by the Corn1§r1is_sionl».'g 'a.cc~.o_rdance with the regulationsl made. in._.tl<!,iS_.behalf under this Act." ,1 i
50. _ Sri "Kh'etty-., liearned counsel appearing on :.be'i1alfa_Medicall""Council of India placed strong relia__,'ri'cel'--u'p_on" statement of counter filed in lVi"'r<-'Viv.P.Nos:§l22e35:§i4ii:1/2009 and 22628--34~/2009 with .l.A.:jv1'(--jfl€'1'€I"lC€ .to__lvarious case laws of the Apex Court on the l"=llegal., 'aspect with regard to its power and to supervise bytjliegnalifications or eligibility standards for admission \\v I {)4 of students into the medical institutions and it has got the vigilance over the institutions in respect of medical courses and further submits that regulations_'oVf"-tllzuei2, MCI are binding upon them as the same are
51. To impart higher educaitiontpiatyigherp Various steps shall be taken for;eonduct_ of exa1rLin:ation:;3 the reguiations are inconsistent,"thjey vtrill to Article 254 of the Ituhisiixfurther submitted that Withpreferencehto. schedule of list 1 of the has been Eei'1c--l'i§ of the Apex Court in Dr or MADHYA PRADESH reportedpin i999'(71V'sccC'*1:é0. He submits that on the the Supreme Court in the case of OF INDIA VS MADHU SINGH reported I 2:58 the argument advanced on behaif of students that prejudice would be caused to the stud.e11tsf.--if they are not admitted on the basis of AIEE rank contrary to the observations made by the Apex Court at paragraph 22. -Further he placed reiiance upon \w/ I06 (Vi) no Variation of the schedule so far as admissions are concerned shall be allowed (Vii) in case of any deviation by the institutions' MCI concerned, action as prescribed shall be taken
52. Reliance is placed on the deci.s.i,ori.VV Supreme Court in the ease of cesciys e T & OYS reported in 1998(5) SCC-.page".f3_'7'?. bléléll submitted that for rejection of filed NITTE University on 24.9.2009 to delete it from the array of the lwrit petition contending t_ltie-Vblroinouncement of law by the regard to the role of MCI in the to the medicine courses both Postgraduate' a,nd Undergraduate courses and having {regard at-irienatu're""'oiV prayers made by the student» by the deemed universities and v"~"'allocation seats by the Karnataka State ..,/ifjg»-Governmenttunder its quota for admission of them in the iindei*.._graduate medical course MCI is a proper and iiecesisary party in their petitions. Therefore he contended " "that the prayer in the memo y untenable in law and I {)7 requested this Court for rejection of the same. This aspect of the matter has been extensively dealt with by'-"--the Supreme Court in SK and others case referred to A.
53. Learned counsel Mr Arun..ap_pearirig' "' of some of the student--petitioners 'of State"£}overnzrient1.i_:
quota allocated to the colleges'-V..etroAngly. the submission made by learned of the Nitte University with regard' fI'8_IT1€Cl by the UGC for the the UGC Act placing strong' of the Supreme Court in "stars Vs. K PURUSHOTHAM REDDY sec 564]], in support of his Contention Court after examining the Articles 4+0, 255, 256 of the constitution of India to Schedule VII Lists 1 and III, "veXarni1i_ed the Zlifeglislative competency of the Parliament and State' Legislature at paragraph 5 sub--paragraph 8.1 A 'i*eferenee to the guidelines referred to at paragraph 23 " ':and..}made certain observations in the said decision at " "paragraphs 22 81 23 that guidelines framed by the UGC for W 108 the purpose of implementation of the UGC Act have got a statutory force, the same are approved by the Apex Court in the said decision. Therefore, he submits 3 guidelines framed by the UGC for the purpose- H under this Act have got statutor'yrAforce..v and binding upon the parties. Therefore;Alobtaini'tig'A. vt1q'e\'N'oi ll Objection Certificate' from by petitioner~Educational piirpose of getting the status of Section 3 of the UGC Act Therefore, it is not open for this stage in these proceedings to contend that they have no statutory force upon them after availing the benefit of the and obtained such. status in the Inotificaticnlstgotissued under Section 3 of the Act in their favour."
54. " The amendment application filed by both the {._Jni\_rersi't_ies in their respective writ petitions were pressed service at the stage of reply submission made by the
-learned senior counsel for the Educational institutions. \\~/ I {)9 Since, we have been hearing these batch of writ petitions on various grounds urged by the learned Senior counsel, We thought it proper to allow the amendment ~ V. Accordingly, we allow the said amendment app'lie:ati.ons loft the petitioner~Edueational institutions it pe1~mr:ltmgcpth¢m is l amend the prayer column in their WI'ilt~-A}."ill€vlL,iti0I1,iR.ll.ilbl:.§7' adding it additional prayer and also to Lir'ge.l'i'a.dditionalr in their respective writ peti_tions.'_VAlb:yA amending the petitions or filing the Registry.
55. The Nitte University on 24.9.2OOE3de1ete the MCI from array of writ petitions is most untenable: Hen~ce'*;ve said memo. 1lofié.yp:{§1m.Amu1ya.s has filed a Misc. Writ in WP thelllwrit petition filed by Kurn Prarthana to get herself""Vi&mpleaded stating certain relevant facts. She V"ap:peare.d for KEA examination and she was selected in the of merit seat from the SC category and her seat is selected under 25% quota of the Government in KS it Medicai Academic College for the first year MBBS on in/' EEO 25.7.2099 and she wanted to implead herself by producing an endorsement dated 31.8.2008 Annexure~B to the said application informing her that she has been permittedtpto attend the classes in the said academic college disposal of the writ petition and further 1"illl'l D up the balance seats. It is also statiedpjjbléy counsel Sri Anand Thirtha tiiat theQ"saidi.»"inipleadin.g applicant has also filed a wfiti«. pe:1t:<§n ._uNo:.2$:'587/O9 seeking the relief as hasfibeflen the batch of students / petitioners allocated:'to't_he_ N*itte"".1}niversity. The same is not
57. in subsequent event of her filing writ pe'ti.tic,.f1,V'thVe._Vi'rn§1eading application does not
1.~s'u1'ViV.e":}{O1f__peonside'ra.ti_on. Though the said Writ petition "~lis.t;éd:v'*itoday along with this batch of writ ptlearried counsel Sri Seshachala, fairly ..H_l."_j':..«submittedvhthat. the said Writ petition may also be taken with this batch of petitions and pass "'appr£3priate orders. His submission is piaced on record the impleading application does not survive and luv 113 the last date for admission of the students in the petitioner-medical colleges was on 3031 September2Q09 in View of the judgment in MRIDUL 3 AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION or INDIA ANE: o:'I:iE;r2s"_r'i reported in (2005) 2 SCC 65 aridlltlherelipre; this Court to take up these mlat.te"r_s for »lel_:é'a'ri'ng'=--4 onl' merits before 30"' September'i's»f:l2:GO9 and the same on merits.
60. Learned Sr, Counsel:"&alpp&esarin.gJonbehalf of the Medical Colleges Uvniv_e1*sities:;' theirmstudents and the students of 'C}ov.ei*nn2ei1t"~quota allocated to both the petition~er?medical were heard and accordingly,
- We took up tliesle"mait_te1f_s 1501 September 2009, heard gtltiern matters ii%er'e"'adjourned to 1631 September 2009 tohere arguments of the learned Advocate l counsel were heard, reply submissions to be heard. At that stage the learned Sr. Counsel on behalf of the Medical Colleges requested this to consider the amendment applications regarding " the additional prayer made in their applications. They were lv 1141 permitted to argue on the said applications along with the Writ petitions. For their further submissions matters were listed on 17.9.2009 learned Sr. Counsel appearii'1gf--._or1_' behalf of the Yenepoya University filed a memo ' the interim order of stay granted on .1"; Court in the Special Leave Petitions --.'l'ne order is extended until further'--.orders land' yyas brought to the notice ofthis 10.92009. We adjourned these matters observation that the learned:.J'xd.yocat§e rrjioye the Hon'ble Chief Justice during Dasara Vacation to f1.1rth_ver..,_hieardthesej matters before the 30'~'1'1 September which is the last date for admissic§r1"osf the students in the medicine courses. On the learned Addl.Govt.Advocate, Special Benchl'l.was" during vacation. Accordingly, we have furthevrlheard the learned Sr.Counsel on 23.9.2009 'reagardlto the additional prayer made by the Medical Ce-llegesfland reply submissions of learned counsel for the ' parties was also heard by us and their petitions are listed today for dictating Judgment. 'l~»/ H5
61. After considering the relevant facts pleaded-._pby the parties, their rival legal contentions K learned Sr. counsel, learned Advocate Crenerall'~andf_1'other--..l counsel appearing on behalf of UGC, MCI. KEA and Studentsiprswfe proceed toppanlswer it said points framed by us iloillovving reasons: it it V POINT No.1 H
62. The for the purpose of Act to consider the proposals institutions including the petitioners colleges'- these Writ petitions to declareégflthe Educatioiial institutions as Deemed Ilfinilxfersiities the said provision of the Act. Learned Sr. on behalf of the Educational institu.tior1s--V:pVand the students admitted by them on the' 0:"-._their ranking in the merit list prepared by them on the examination have contended that the said V 'regulations have no statutory force of law. Therefore, they have urged that obtaining NOC from the State Government \M H6 by the educational institutions to declare their educational institutions as Deemed Universities from the Central Government is wholly untenable in law. This contentioneis strongly countenanced by learned counsel, appearing for some of the students ofm25 0/o_--'quo:ta: l W placing reliance on the decision the, STATE OF' ANDHRA PRAKESH «fis-lliéunijsfioririggiiiilngniarl 8: OTHERS referred to supra the Court examined the legaiity and framed by the UGC for theVpurp'ose::'Vpo.f~.l functioning, planning and Act. The Apex Court at __abc=ire referred decision with reference to by the UGC for the purpose_;jof the has held that they have got the lnstatutory ain this regard, it is necessary for us to refer~to._vrelei}ant'l~:portion from the said Judgment which reads "22 ..................... .. On a comparative Qsindy of the provisions of Act 26 of 1986 and Act 16 of 1988, the functions of the Comrnissionerate and the functions of the State Council Well nigh are the same except to the extent of stating that the Council H7 should act in accordance with the guidelines issued by UGC from time to time."
63. Para 5 and sub~para 8»i of the said Judgment refers to the revised guidelines as approved I998. The relevant clauses of said guidelines__ar to in the said decision. The Apex guidelines and the recommendations by setting up the Council, powerls-._a11d functions lfiof the Council, planning and monitor the progress and impl_emei1tation '-of; slush".Iglevelopmental programmeslof. ll1'i;ive'rs:itiesl prepared by the UGC from time to tir"r3_.e.l in the said case with referenceto g'uidelir1-els'~~--framed for the purpose of the recognliseidwand approved.
_ it is held that the duties and " . H of the Councils are lhlcorriplartlrnentalised and they have to act in .. __accordance with the guidelines issued by C from time to time, it is preposterous to suggest that the Council acts on its own and/ or at the instance of the Government in the field of coordination and iv 118 determination of standards in institutions of higher education _as an independent body.
64-. Therefore, guidelines framed by the purpose of Section 3 of the UGC Act has reliance by learned counsel Sri Din:esh"K:1y_1r:ar.; the UGC contending that the same atre lreferable 26(d} of the UGC Act and they got statultory The V relevant portion is extractled' abotve.' 1. ''28(d)4._ : ' t.he,:>instit; itions or class» :i:i;Asvtitti_ltions '"--~w'.l*1ich may be Commission under c1au..s_é {fl
85. By a. careful' r'ead~.i_ng"of the guidelines framed by the UGC purposle"of'processing the applications of the under Section 3 of the UGC Act xwho be. the status of Deemed University from Central_Al3Government under UGC Act, we have noticed the basis of the said guidelines, petitioner- W Efduclational institutions hive acted upon and processed [19 their applications, UGC had sought 'views' of the State Government on their appiications, which can be construed as obtaining NOC from the State Government. K petitioner--Educatioria1 institutions obtained having fully understood that obtaiafiingoi' State Government is a must T. to g'et"i;her1'1_d.€§i'arediAas' deemed universities from the the opinion and advise of institutions have given and executed the Memorandum of the State Government of processing their app1ieatio:i_is.m'V it of the guidelines including Giause to the phrases contained therein secure,' views" by the UGC from the State V"Governrnerit[p is "for the purpose of submitting its opinion and' to'~Ggive"itsv.,advi'se to the Centrai Government to exercise its power for grant of the status of Deemed University upon Educational Institutions, which is referabie to Sec. ofijthe Act and therefore they have got a statutory in law. Therefore, WC have to accept the legal submissions made on beha} of t UGC and the student- petitioners of 25% Govt. quota that guidelines framed for the purpose of Sec.3 of the UGC Act have got stat.-'story force and the same have been accepted and V. the parties. in fact petitioner» Educational i11s'titu«tiio.n'sdof_4 V' Deemed Universities have processed Mtheirr_a«pp.1icati.onvs"Von7 the basis of said guidelines. Therefore._. :the of the guidelines of the UGC isdlegal and the reliance placed upon by/th.e lerirnedljgeiiior counsel upon the decisions of the in 2005 (5) SCC 420 at para§48:i.p:y§rhich «V which stultiiiesdflor jatflnauglhtlyan enactment validly' 4' would be Whollyc4ultra°vireAs.»- are fortified in our vglewpploy a Constitution Bench decision in R. V-iChi2t'rale-lgha vi State of Mysore where power ' under Entry 11 List 11 (as it then i" - ercisteiiifi and Entry 25 List 111 qua Entry 66 "List.-__°I' came up for consideration. Subba A pRao,_d. after quoting the following passage from Gujrat University V. Krishna Rnaganath Mudholkar (SCR p.139): (R. T Chitralekha case, at SCR 9.379} iv "The State has the power to prescribe the syllabi and courses of study in the institutions named in Entry 66 (but not V falling Within Entries 63 to 65] and as an it incident thereof it has the power to indicate." » the medium in which instruction should.llE'3e.V I imparted. But the union Parlianmnlt an overriding legislative povxier "
that the syllabi and Vcon_Vrses'~..oVf prescribed and the mediurn' impair standards, education render the coordination of 'such' "either on an a1l--India_or other or even .
and another-_ Court reported in 2005 SCC '(5)2él' .. at support of their contention t,_h"at..,_the;':p_jcla;use..i_fw ll"/"of'----'the guidelines under which the Views ..:C¥oVernment obtained by the UGC have statutory not tenable in law. Para~»22 reads _ As held in "RN. case the Central
-- Act of 1987 and in particular Section 10 (k) "occupied the field relating to "grant of _ approvals" for establishing technical institutions and the provisions of the Central Act alone were to be complied With. W applicable to the Notifications dated 24.03.09 & Notification dated 12.01.09 respectively in view of Clauses 6 82: 6(iii) issued in favour of the said universities'»u'nd~erg Sec.3 of the UGC Act, which clause clearly all conditions that were stipulated dated 4.6.08 and 27.02.08 conferring'thestatu.s\'--i.ot"p0'dee1i1ed 0. universities upon the petitionerlrléfilducationai:institutions shall continue to be in by them. ' H A 0 I A
70. in the aipmtmcaiiong and 27.2.08. there is a upon the said universitiezsthait adhere to the conditions imposed bythe at the time of obtaining NOC byéthem and they were directed to enter into an the State Government regarding the Seat'- related matters.
01,71. Inf;-he case of NITTE University, it has given in the form of affidavit which document is . available for our perusal by the NITTE deemed 'university which reads thus:
W 129
73. A reading of the undertaking and MOU given by the President of NITTE Education Trust and IAOE to the State Government on the basis of the letters dated 17.10.07 and 28.12.2007 submitted by Government to the UGC. It has been stated_.thaf:'ithe.::State'"
Government has decided to issue No objection.' ciertifioates .A in their favour for estab1ishme.nt- .__of th'e.V_deemed'b'university in respect of their medical co11egets"'«subj_ect' to ccindition that the institutions shall in its favour in the form of MOU.to thee-ffe.ct tVhat_'the seats shall be surrenderedfto the'. "tate Governrnent both from the Graduate seats in the course.
Pursuant to the abov_etis_ai'd"x letters, the undertaking and 't~he.,:ab.0ve was given by the NITTE trust and regarding the seat matrix in . V » the course of medicine.
74; T notifications issued by the UGC declaring the pet_itioner.--'Educationa1 institutions as deemed universities V' .iS"."on'g;the basis of NOC obtained by them from the State .,,...,,,,Cfovernment subject to ndition that they would 130 adhere to its policy regarding sharing of 25% of seat matrix in the medical colleges and professional courses run by them to fulfil its social obligation to the students be1or1gi.rig"".VA to the SC. ST and other backward classes of On the basis of the same, the opinion was UGC and also gave its advise to the Ceiitraéoveiiarrient declare the said institutions as considered its opinion and the 1aoW'er'~under Sec. 3 of the UGC Act, deemed university under the said Educational Insti_tuti'oii.s. idcertain conditions incorporated in theivi'.afo_resa.id'relevant Notifications issued in their favour," the status of deemed university' therri undertaking and MOU to the Stated allocated its 25% quota seats as agreed students of its quota to the I Year 'advises ceuree for? the academic year 20092010 in their .1co11eges.eiTher'efore, now it is not open for them to turn V.".v~"'rourj-diiaridiicontend that the said conditions incorporated in hind"-._the.flNo'tifications issued in their favour are without the 'zjhthority of law of the C Government and therefore, I3E the same cannot be enforced against them which contention of them is wholly untenable in law. Hence, the said contention urged on their behalf cannot be acce'pt'e'dl"'-WV by this Court to quash the conditions incorporated ' . Notifications as prayed by them as their' unfounded and contrary to the law de'clar:edlV Court in the cases of Preethi Sriiiiyaspa and P; As We have already held, while answ:é_r'ingi._the lP'o'int-'l\EO.l holding that clause-- 1 7 of thellguidei-irles by the UGC for the purpose of':processinlg:.«itiielhéipplications of the educational institutions" seeiung the status of deemed univlersgityllu.ndeir_tI'iel"{lIGC_'Act have got statutory force for the re-aslonslrecorded-..by"lus. With reference to the decision the Suprerne Court in the case of STATE OF Vs. K. PURUSHOTHAM REDDY & Others._referred"'_~vto and therefore, it is not open for ipetitioiiefideefned universities to seek the relief by way itof'a§}igjition.alVVprayer in their writ petitions to quash that 'll-4'portion'-Zofllthe guidelines under clause 1'? 'obtaining the ' myiewlslflof the State Government' at the time of considering their applications contmn in contending that there 132 is no statutory requirement for the Educational institutions to obtain such views from the State Government under the provisions of the UGC Act. We have examined further contention urged on behalf of them that "obtaifl¥1.g Objection Certificates' from the State Government"ar:nou'ntsll ' to approval of views as stated in Sec.1t)l{f'of the Gandhi Universities Act which phrase iswini;erprete'dby" if Supreme Court in the case of ANOTHER vs. STATE or fC)'I'i~l~iERS' (supra) upon which strong reliance learned Sr.Counsel in under the guise of Government by the UGC for subrnitting Central Government. 'No VObjeC[tl{0\f1 Certiii'c.fl_tle'l froimvthe State Government is not réquifedjh llhevsaid decision has no application to the fact reason that S3 of the UGC Act ffiprovides t'hat"---'the".lCentraj Government may, on the advise declare by notification in the Official Gazette. institution for_ higher education, other than a '.gjv--.cUnivVefrsity, shall be deemed recognised to be a University the purpose of the Act n such a declaration being :33 made, all the provisions of the Act shall apply to such institution as if it were a University within the meaning of clause (1) of Section 2 of the UGC Act.
75. The applications of the petitioner institutions who had sought the V.-statups universities from the Central Govt. under (Act; iii followed the guidelines and the ' institutions of deemed univerSxiti6S~~it'o fitheilvieiwsvifrom the State Government that it "_;them and requested the State. Objection Certificate'. at that an undertaking to the State above. On the basis of their undertaliinpg into with the State Government " the advise: was given by the UGC to the cé'nu%a1«ioc;r¢ii%;;:i:en_: and it has accepted the same and eXercised'.--___its" and incorporated the conditions v7Irefet.'red the Notifications. The status of deemed .1university-._ohtained by the petitioner--Col1eges, the same V.i"V-'€.vou.I'd into force only on fulfilment of the conditions .'llV'.pjv--.enu:lnerated in the Notification by them. Therefore, they cannot challenge the terms and conditions incorporated in 'W 134 the notifications in their petitions by retaining the status of deemed university declared by the Central Government. The status of deemed universities was granted to Educational Institutions subject to the cond1tio1§'..'_'v---off' fulfilment of conditions enumerated in the ]\'ot.§ficatior1--s '4 and undertaking given to the State :=_C%over.nrrrent.' if MOU agreeing to share 25% of.'th__e seats" to V coileges. Therefore, the iegai conterition of the NITFE Trust to quash;:--«.._tfiat'l.l: regard to obtaining the views as of the guideiines and the of 25% quota in favour of are without authority of iaw by and therefore, the additionalgggplrayer of The granted by this Court as thepetitioncr: insititutions are not entitled for such reliefs. The Central after satisfying the advise given f71i:iyvt'i_1e the basis of the undertaking given by {thedlan'}je'titi.oner--Educational Institutions to the State with regard to the seat matrix and other "ll"'iorelatedfrnatters, it has exercised its power under Sec.3 of . UGC Act and granted the status in their favour. If they iv had not given such undertaking to the State Govrnment, the UGC would not have advised the Central Government to exercise its power for C()1'if€I'II1€I'1t of status of deerne4d;_V university upon them is one more strong reason formus' -5 to grant the relief as prayed by them it conditions enumerated in the respective notifi5cati.ons';' Such' ix] relief also cannot be granted by tli.is'~.,(;ourt~ exercis{ev«o.f discretionary jurisdiction for one the conferment of status of deeined, their favour must be taken in its'_entiret.y"t"r.1e'y the order favourable to conditions which require th:eni._-vgto.l3'fulfi,ll'thcir_' obligations as agreed upon them at, the status of deemed ur1iversity.4;"1"l1e staricitoll' the Institutions at this stage that they to fulfil the conditions after obtaining no objlcctiont by them from the State Government not the" siné"ijua non in law to get the status and given and M01} entered into with the State by them in its favour is wholly untenable in dill'jglgaw-«ilorlthe reason, if they had taken such stand at the initial stage the UGC would not have processed the 'M 135 applications submitted by them and it would not have submitted its favourable opinion and gave advise to the Central Government and in that event, the statu's--i:"foi"".VA deemed university could not have been granted'.TbyV.i::t:' their favour and further, the conduct" of A the Educational Institutions by agreeing tlh'e_A'seats"
25% to the State Government timeV..of-considering their applications and got' the with conditions, now not honouriiig them and wanted to enjoy oi is their inconsistent and corittad-ictofyvi,st--and'=.which wouid reflect their conduct is of_t'h.e strong reason which dism entitles them forgsthe' reliefs siiicesssthe petitionerwlnstitutions have acted' upon guidelines and given the undertaking and en'tered_il\ZlQ§}'«respectively with the State Government in the fClI.'1Ii f'efés1§:;§e:iit'¢ supra with regard to the seat matrix l'7__an(iV related." matters to fulfil. its social obligations, which is .1 ~«tVhe2..:poAlic3{ of" the State Government to discharge of their 'S"4"_'j£:o1i«stitutionai obligation towards the students of socially "educationally oppressed class and weaker sections of the society who have been neglected from ages who are in 3. 'KM I37 disadvantageous position in the society and therefore the State Government has to provide professional Education to them for their upliftment and provide an opportunitj:?":.to.g:.l'~. them to serve the Society. Therefore, it had it policy in this regard by enacting State' llavvs of:
its legislative power under Article 246 of _Constitution l' Entry 25 of List 111 of Sevent-hV:lv"'--schedule"-vvhich Permissible in view of theblaw tiara in Preethi Srivatsava case referred' has given 'No Objection Certificates' the above conditions. The. obtained from the institutions to allocate the seats for admission of quota in their colleges. Tlgielreforel. it. lnotliopen for them at this stage to all contend that conditions imposed upon them in 'the Noltifi__ca_tilons are uoid-ab~initio in law for want iof lstatutolry.p'olic'vl under UGC Act. The said contention of .1thelll.i:e,arr1ie.d slerlior counsel on behalf of the petitioner» .A"4"_JlI,"}..Sl'I«l.«t11"'[l'.'EOlIl'lb is untenable in law for the reason that the l Zfg'--.gpLiideliries framed for the purpose of Sec.3 of the UGC Act referabie to Sec.26(d) r{i{'{\'1;l1/e UGC Act, which stipulates l 3?) pronouncements cannot be immaculate legal conception. It is but right that no important point of law should be decided without a proper lis between parties properly ranges on either side and a crossing of the swords. We think it is in expedient for the Supreme Court to delve into problems which do not arise and".
express opinion thereon."
77. No proper lis raised by the M Institutions in support of their reliei"s«p_in t<h:Ae"V«fw:rit:l«' petitions to facilitate the Central Got/verrirnentplv.':3.1id it UGC to meet such contentions. We:"a.re of""the»\}Viei3}f:'thlat the grounds urged by dzlxlslamic Academy of Education are fuilyg which this Court to read down the terms and in the notifications.
In support oi .lgg.13o'<.r»el"illegal contention learned AdivCocAapte':i.jCeiieral relie'd"'upon the decision of the Apex C0ulrt'_. iii M.1\/Ieenakshi VS. Metdin Agarwal g'r=eferredA to supra}, 'C Strong reliance is placed by the learned Senior vfoifz.-'the Educational institutions upon the decision Iesapajzarr VIDYAPEETH VWATE MAELARASHTRA reported in (2004) I1 SCC 755 referred to supra. Paragraphs l7 <3: 18 are extracted hereunder:
17. if the power to legislate in regard to_....._J' f those aspects are entirely carved out oi: A the subject of education and vestedV__in.,_ Parliament even at a _time v.%hen-{H "education" fell under List Ii, wegdflnd no " V it reason now not to accept theipaiigurnellrits' A advanced on behalf of the appellant that, V' ' once an institution within tlie scope of Entry 66 of List I§»itdfa_ils outside 5 the control of the ,.provisi-ens '--ofrEntry'25 of List III. A ~ V
18. Under Sectionpflighof the._Actv,, Vd*e;eI'ned university status fijiwiil ..4giV_e.n 'to those institutions 1§i1'a.t for historical' reasons or for any circurnstalncies.' are not universities and vet aredoing work of a high "'stanidarti; " in i . specialised academic filed 'to'«.a"~u_n--i.Versity and that granting of 'a*.u11iv'ersity status would enable tl1eIn"-to".fu.--rti'1ei" contribute to the course of Vl1igl:.ier"._education which would nr1utL1,ally "enrich the institution and the . "viunivers--ity system. Guidelines for ccnsi.deri1=:.g proposals for declaring an has deemed to be university ' Were' ajlsojissued by UGC. Under the said A»..guidc.]i_nfcs aspects relating to admission vverlcaspecifically entrusted with UGC and A admission could be made only through a A 'li'-common entrance test on all~lndia basis.
''--..Such an exercise was intended to maintain a uniform standard and level of excellence. As we have pointed out. admission plays a crucial role in maintaining the high quality of education. And for the proper \\\«/ iéék maintenance of academic excellence, as intended by the UGC Act, admission to deemed university have to be made under the control of UGC. This further goes to show that admission procedure to ya . deemed to be university is fully occup1ed;""" ' by Entry 66 of List I and the State cannot "
exercise any powers over admis.si-o,n",V" V' procedure. -- it In View of the law laid down in th_e«..al:>ove,_ status of deemed Universities the educational institutions notification dated 26.4.1996 is" learned Counsel Mr. lieli-aiifcvel the facts at paragraphs} decision, it has no application to on hand for the reason that on :l1'99V_'6 "issued Office memorandum eaiééierieg as deemed University in terins of UGC Act without the conditions l:"""regarding_V seatsharing with State Government was ""-:in::orporatedV__tin the notification issued in its favour, Whereas in the notifications issued in favour of the it petit,i,oner--institutions there are specific conditions imposed l"fVt'hat status of deemed universities will come into force on \v 143 event for the first time in the letters pa.tent appeal."
"I8. It is a Wellesettled principle of law _ _ that even a Void order is required to be set_....__ U * aside by a competent court of law:
inasmuch as an order may be void__ in _ respect of one person but maywbepvalid ' respect of another. A void _orde"r necessarily not non est. An ord:e_r"cannot_.. A be declared to be void __in a;_ co1later--al_. V' ' proceeding and that too in*the absence the authorities who werenthe authors thereof. The orders ,-pa-.ssed~-._ by "the authorities were n--o_tf found.,to,gbe«,who1ly without jurisdiction. '_1"l1ey, were' thus, nullifies." I
79. The status.'o"f":'--~deerrl-ed- ._Ilni'v;ers'ity will come into effect in VInstit:ution:s"only after fulfillment of the conditions inco1'poriated.._in»..their respective" notifications whereas in the "ea_eee es BHAJRATI VIDYAPEETH there are 's'uch'e"terr'ns and conditions stipulated in the notification issuedgin. "casef;._.}~Further, the la.w laid down in the said "lease in the of interim order granted on 19.5.1997 Jth.eV.p_follo\l\ring effect was continued till the date of the case which reads as follows:
i "'--"l"We are informed that the examination process had already begun as early as February 1997. In the larger public interest. we are of the view iv [44 that the petitioner will conduct an ail~India entrance test and will grant admission strictly on the basis of the merit of the candidates. Admission so granted will be subiect to the final orders, that will be passed by Court."
(Emphasis laid by this Court)
80. The said interim order wa.s""continued the disposal of the said writ petition is the'«re'ason the said case in addition to the other-preleva.nt*fa_ct that there was no conditior1.,.¥}1en_ti'onediitthellnotification stating that on fulfiiment of deemed University will cojm'e:.;Vir1t0 I of Bharathi Vidyapeeth's case. placed on the said decision byfithe lear.ned:'«Senior__Counsels on behalf of the deemed Universities land"'its,.4s't1_idents is of no assistance to them. Forflan.0ther" the said decision cannot be applied thveilfacitsvituation in view of the law laid down by the Clonstitiitionai'l~l;Bench at paragraph 81 in the case of 7?'_.9r.Preethi' Srivatsava referred to supra.
ll Farther the conditions incorporated in the issued by the Central Government in favour of lll'*-._thev:petitioner«institutions on the advice of the UGC aiso if-annot be read down by thi in view of the decision 145 of the Constitutionai Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of RA. INAMDAR AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS reported in (2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 53'? in which at paragrap.hl_f$_:8.i_ '1'.M.A. PAI FOUNDATION Vs. STATE or _ referred to, which case is decided by 1__1....J1_1dges"
(2002) 8 sec 481 has held thus. The 1:'¢1e»§z.ahtb reads as follows:
"68. It would be unfair_Vto._applgj thevlsarne rules and regulations v.regi§ilating: adrnissiozf. to both aided and profiéssional 'ins--.':r£t'utions. It must be borne «.»m:ind'-._th_a't. _ unaided professional institutions ai.ére;j_ eentitleclifto " 'autonomy in their administration Luhile, "'at~-.the's'am'e time, they do not forego _orv':':iisc'a.rd«.,ethe_ principle of merit. It would,"-_ therefore-i.' permissible for the universitg or the '*Go,v"ernment, at the time of granting re'cognitio_n,7,to'require a private unaided institution toprooide for merit--based selection «--._Awhi_le, at the giving the management . ,sz,if}'u:*ie'11t discretion in admitting students. This _ C'::1n" be-_done "through various methods. For "instance,"'_~a_ certain percentage of the seats can be._.reseruecl_ for admission by the management
-- out" ofthose students who have passed the comrrionienirance test held by itself or by the ., Sta.t;e/ university and have applied to the college " _con_cfemed for admission, while the rest of the seats ITICILI be filled up on the basis of counsellinq __bu the State agency. This will incidentallu take care of poorer and backward sections of the society. The prescription of percentage for this purpose has to be dor3l'}g_'V,__l:)fl the Government $6 146 accordino to the local needs and different percentages can be fixed for minority unaided and nowminoritu unaided and professional colleges. The same principles may be applied to".
other non-professional but unaided educational»"'.fl'--_..V' . institutions viz. Graduation and post--gradua_ito"n'--« ' V non--professional colleges or institutes." (Emphasis made by this Co'ui't}"< . A_
82. In our considered opinion, o'os_e'ri{ations--v_in1adeV i' the above case with all fours appiieabie to the case on hand in View of 'fact estate' ivegisiature has enacted the aforesaid regarding reservation of matters to the professionéd Private unaided Educationaiiinstittljtions the need of rendering professional eiducation. sections of the Society to fulifill social.' obi1igatior.i. /.
in View of the decision of :7iv}"*Constitutidona1'id-Bench in the case of Dr.Preethi "~13-r'iiratsava State of MP reported in 1999 (7) SCC which is extracted hereunder:
.e "81. The old Entry 11 of List if, as eariier existing in the Constitution of India, read as under:
M8 25 of List Ill. the said topic would get excluded from the legislature field available to the State "Legislature even under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List.
(Emphasis supplied} In view of Constitution Bench decision, un€3lelrt.akling ll given and the memorandum of und:e'rsta«nding_;.e§;et;1:1_:te-d by both the Educational Institutlio_nl's__A.in Sf_e_sv'o1r1r"
Karnataka State Governmel1;£':"~./., ancir. undertaking given by the conditions incorporated by the Central Gojxelinntent the said Educational Institutions» deemed" universities are legal and isin conformity with the principle laid in_the" above case. " careful reading of the pronouncement of law made 'the'-«..l§.i4X'7~lnamdars'; Constitution Bench of the Su-_preme---- com~t",A the policy of the Karnataka State _"€3ro2Ie1Anment"' relating to seat matrix in favour of the stu_.dewnts"llwho belong to socially, economically weaker is recognized by the Apex Court. in View of the ahove decision of the Apex Court which is later to the \m/ E49 Bharathi Vidyapeeth case and the decision of the Constitution Bench will be binding upon the parties. With reference to the law laid down by the Supreme Court above cases. the legal contentions urged by V' Haranahalli, learned Advocate :GCer1'eral"__ Government seats under Rule (l) and*Rule Rules framed under Section 14 of 'gotta statutory force. The said laiiiejapplicable"to the petitioner--Educational as the same is in conforIrjii_tyfp;v}ith of law made by the ithég-iyigbove referred cases with provisions, hence his submission shall be Court, accordingly we accept llportion of Rule 2(1) regarding clearly stipulates that 25% of the_ allocated to the Private Educational lnstitutio'ns.'*--.V: Based on the policy of the State Government Certificates' were secured by the deemed at the time of processing their application. Therefore, incorporating the conditions by the Central Government in the notifications issued has recognized the V of fact that certain percentage of seats should be given to the State Government to discharge its social obligations while exercising its statutory under Sec.3 of the UGC Act, is the parliamentary law regarding higher educa'ti"ori:;i::'II'he M State Government having regard to its"mEdi1cagtiona1' in relation to professional courses has:"enacte'gl_t the:
framed rules in exercise of Section 14 of the provisionsgotf 'toddischarge its constitutional obligationgivvitihlrele're:ii.ced'_':.é__"Article 15 of the Constitution to be made by the Educational poorer sections of the society"'isV_g4'Wei1 in the decision of RA. IATAIIQD thatvsin terms of Rule 2(1) of the (liovernrnent quota is perfectly in conforrI'ii_ty above decision, which is one more strong reas'on'v"f;or us not to grant. the reliefs to the .itVTpetirtio;:er--educational institutions to read down the terms K conditions regarding allocation of 25% students of the . Government quota to the petitioner--l\/Iedical Colleges. \\/ 151
84. The learned counsel Mr. Rajendra Kurnar Sungay, rightly has pointed out that the status of deemed University will be acquired by the Nitte Educa.ti.o_ii.ail~w.x institutions only on the fulfillment of incorporated in the notification dated 54;-»..6._20O8.Vvvhic1i become effective on the declaration disaffiliated from viz., Rajiv Sciences (for short 'the RG-UzHS).g.i-"*in"g_:th'i's_ggregard, Ramesh, learned counsel filed a memo along with to the wherein it is indicated Academy has been disaffiliated the "not. The contention urged by the learricd Ialacing reliance upon Sec.2(a] themdefinition of affiliation has to be read "alongixvv'iti_i.,»V__t1iei"statutes framed by the senate of the Sec "kof the Act reads thus:
' "affiliated college' means a college for institution situated within the M University Area and affiliated to the University in accordance with the Statutes prescribed and inciudes all colleges and institu 'on deemed to be 152 affiliated to the University under this Act"
85. There is no provision of affiliation under the RGUHS Act for grant of affiliation to its basis of year to year as contended by = -- Sr.Counse1. The disaffiliation of a cciliéger the statute No.3 framed by the T.Senate. eXercise'vof statutory power under Sec.45(6)"V"re:ad of Sec.33 of RHUHS Act. It 1:-:. fact, laslllcoiild be seen from the letter addressV:e':;i:"hyl of the said University to the KEA, that K.S. Hegde other colleges of the deemed uniirersitiesvjarie'-.stilllun'der"affiliation of the RGUHS till they c0mplVei'tehh the The said statement of the i~}'.«egistra1f_:'3'of""ab.1.i.n'dant1y makes it clear that the Medi,cal'(2ol1ege is not disaffiliated. The reliance Vi"Ai...p1aced i.i_1;$on thefcliecision in Shivaraman's case referred to has"I_1o application to the facts of this case as the V,notiiicatio'i.1 in the said case has come into force with "i.i.ii'in;i_ediiate effect whereas the notification in respect of this college subject to the conditiw the disaffiliation of it 153 from RGUHS. Hence, it has remained as a private medical college affiliated to RGUHS. The status of deemed university to the Educational institutions of NITTE has not yet come into effect, is one more strong -re'aso1:1'--i ' us to hold that undertaking given by"th'e« the State Government agreeing to share of seats in College is not binding upon it.
86. For the foregoing? by us in answer to the to VIII, the l3etitioner«~deernedL1iIiiyersi:tie_s' for any relief including the, by them and therefore th.eir._petitions are liable to be rejected. _ "Ans'*vver"'t9 IX & X:
the peculiar relief sought for by the ~.l,l'.j'jv.~Y_ei;iepoya "Educational Institution in the writ petition is a ofyifiandamus declaring the State Government either or retaining 25% seats in the colleges run by its "deemed university and in insofar as the Nitte University is \~»/ 154 concerned the original prayer is for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing the notification issued by the State Government in allocation of seats to the extent of its intake as Government. quota and a writ of mandamus * cannot be granted by this Court for the
88. As we have already Vheld in'solfa.r asvilthei University is concerned, disaffiliatioinhllaof its Gollege has not taken place. it status of deemed University, even University status is it conditions of notifications dateda Having regard to the conduct.' of' Nitte College giving an undertaking to the State Government ag1'*ie_eing_':a_t3o share 25%vv--:1f«seats of the intake fixed by the India. the State Government allocated G seatswaftegrdselecting the meritorious students from
-:l.l.l'_ja.'mlongst theA':.students who belong to scheduled caste. tribe and OBC Group by conducting the . 'liglcoiinselling by the KEA. As per the Inamdafs case cited sufira since it is not yet disaffiliated from RGUHS, it had 'iv 156 the State Government in not permitting the students of State Government quota of 25% who have been admitted by the KEA to the petitioner colleges and made approach this Court to litigate the matter and V' approach to this Court by filing Writ"'«pet*itio,Vri$*V:, untenable grounds in support of VKt__he_ir misconceiv;e'dVlV"' prayers cannot be appreciated the reasons recorded above, if .'u'r1iversit.ies'rtE1edical colleges have admitted its of AIEE beyond 75%, of a writ of mandamus v'.:.e)ttracted above is once again " also cannot be granted bylilthpiis of the Judgment of the Supreme 'Court in munuum Vs. UNION 01+' INDIA AND oriéimis réppfteg in 2005 (5) sec 65, upon which, the 3/::Ir'."Khetty has rightly placed reliance upon the said' wherein the Apex Court has emphasized need of strict enforcement of the time schedule and _ has given direction at para--35 (11) held that any V uadtnission made by the College in excess of the sanctioned intake fixed by MCI is not permissible at all. The relevant W portion of the said directions/ observations made by the Apex Court in the above case are extracted as hereunder: "35 (11). If any private medical c011ege_.i..__x'V:dV"%"
in a given academic year for any reason. grants admission in its rnanagernent quot"-ax in excess of its prescribed_..quota,_--'"theC.f. ' management quota for the next _a4c-avd"e_miic~ '- year shall stand reduced so asto s_eit~'off'th"e A effect of excess admissions in " ' management quota ir1«_v_l*tVhe preVious"".,_"' academic year." " V
89. Again at para"3$"'\~'«:i,f1 1116:. .abf_)_ve"'«case Apex Court held regardingtime schedule admission which Para is exi17€§t'F?t<3:i"£'x'd/ "
sregard Ato--»...thVe professional courses, it deserues 'emphasised that all concerned it including :_4Go:oernnients, State and Central both!MCI/l}.Cl"':colleges ~ new or old, universities, examining ' authorities;.,:e'tc_._, are required to strictlu adhere to wherever provided for there be admitted and the admissions shouldV'_A'not' be in excess of sanctioned intake capacity or in excess of quota of anuone. whether State or management. The carrying forward of any unfilled seats of one academic \\~»«/ 161 in support of his legal submission that. the terms and conditions incorporated in the notifications issued by the Central Government under Section 3 of U.G.C. opposed to the public policy is wholly untenable iirlaw, V' reliance placed upon the above--said"decisions_;arel._1njs§.V placed and the same do not supportcaslevslag have no application to the fact situation the decisions of the Apex Cour:t=..i_n T.M.'A;'VVvPai 8.:
PA. inarndar, referred to supra-.
93. The the petitioner» Educattc-nal.}nstitutions.._of.jlgothfl einiversities over and above 75% the will be the excess of intake fixed is not legally permissible in View of by learned counsel Mr. Khetty orrlthe: loasisv.:_of:decision of the Apex Court in Mruduldas _,.,,_,..case r'efer1'ed.su.fpra. Therefore. the students who are ..d.l\i'_:«ad'fi;1tted byvllthe colleges beyond their quota and intake by MCI on the basis of the merit 'ra11ki11g list Vlpreparéed on the basis of All India Entrance Exainttjzatiori icondtrcted by them and not permitting the students of the \m/ E62 State Government quota of 25% seats from reporting in their colleges and attending the classes on the ground that they are excess is wholly illegal and therefore, the students of Educational Institutions of both the petitivo.n'er'~._v universities are not entitled for the reliefs as ~ them. Mr. Khetty very fairly made submissiyon _o'n'thle;V unreported decisions of the Apex Coizrtinthat the admission made by the Medicéil..::(lQ1leges__ petitioner universities of more the MCI the seats less than Zfilfoilof quota which seats can be'fil1e:d.VVatter the last V "
date viz, Government and' KEA do not send . to their colleges after adinissionplfvstudentaon counselling on 30.9.2009 for this acadernic 'Aj.IT1"tA.}i-elf colleges such number of seats shall he carried-/V the Government quota for the next 'academic to" that extent of number of their seats .1-indulged for the next academic year which number will be 13 'insofar as Nitte University is concerned and in so far as ' -- Yenepoya University is concerned, it is 5. \z\»/ I63
94. In the result, We pass the following order:
ti) Writ Petition Nos.24656 & 24557/2009"fafi;d,:"-.
22413/2009 filed by NITTE UI'1iV€§I'S:i"tyv-.',:V.V':'1Viti"'iaC'l' ' YENEPOYA University fail dismissed. V M 2 The students admittedL"to_ NITTE Universities the Karnataka shall be admitted to year' if not yet admit.t4€rC§1i,.' fiked by the State be permitted to classes, examination eto., acoeptingt fixed by the State fivoyerntm-ent: "
Rsiineeutthte Niftffitand the YENEPOYA Universities only 12 and 20 students, A resp~eet.iyely, during the current year, as against th,e_t* Government quota, and if any student it Efstudents among 12 and 20 of the Government of Karnataka quota seats who are allocated and be further \n/ admitted/yet to admitted, on
(iv) " IV) 164 counseling by KEA and allocating them to other colleges, as 30.9.2009 being the East date for admission to the course, to that extentsit-he~._ respective coileges of both the uniVersi.t§ies"shja1I _ be made over such number of seats"t"o= 'State 1 Government quota for the=._ne.xtA.ac1ad'enii-c 1j,V7§3'c}I"'*:'_~ 2010-2011.
it is made clear that and YENEPOYA. Un'ii(ei7.sit3t. vadfirvvnitted. but they could not_he_ during the current" in excess of the those candidates may academic year--2010- as 'agai_i1.st"f_:h'e.'Management quota of those _UniVe"1*sitie so direction"s"'at s1. Nos.(iii)and (iV) are issued ..:tii¢ law laid down in MRKIDUL DHAR ""1{1\x1_i;~i{3i:} .73: ANR. Vs. U01 3: 01's. (2005) 5 sec 65. 1 off.
Aceofdingly the other writ petitions are disposed iv