Karnataka High Court
Ms. Linda Johnson vs National Institute Of Fashion ... on 19 August, 2020
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.9170 OF 2020 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
MS. LINDA JOHNSON
D/O.JOHNSON P. KURIYAN,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
STUDENT, RESIDING AT No.190/3/3,
KRISHNA COMPLEX,
NAGARBHAVI MAIN ROAD,
MOODALPALYA,
BENGALURU - 560 072
....PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAJESHWARA P.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FASHION TECHNOLOGY
NIFT CAMPUS, GULMOHAR MARK,
HAUZ KHAS, NEW DELHI - 110 016
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR GENERAL
2. CAMPUS DIRECTOR
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FASHION TECHNOLOGY,
NIFT CAMPUS, RAJIV GANDHI SALAI,
TARAMANI, CHENNAI - 600 113.
2
3. THE NODAL OFFICER,
NIFT COUNSELLING 2019,
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FASHION TECHNOLOGY,
NIFT CAMPUS, NO.21,
16TH CROSS, 27TH MAIN,
SECTOR -1, HSR LAYOUT,
BENGALURU - 560 102.
4. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FASHION TECHNOLOGY,
NIFT CAMPUS, RAJIV GANDHI SALAI,
TARAMANI, CHENNAI - 600 113.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHANKARANARAYANAN, ASG & SRI. R.V. NAYAK,
ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-4)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
MEMORANDUM DATED 24.06.2020 PASSED BY THE R-2 AS
PER ANNEXURE-B AS COMMUNICATED TO THE
PETITIONER VIDE EMAIL COMMUNICATION SENT TO THE
PETITIONER ON JUNE 24, 2020 AT 9.52 AM BY THE R-2
ANNEXURE - A ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed seeking writ of certiorari to quash the Memorandum bearing No.18/NIFT/CHE/Admn. (2019-20)2005 dated 24.06.2020 passed by the respondent No.2 as per Annexure-B.
2. The facts leading to the top noted writ petition are as under:
The petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the cancellation of her admission to the Master of Fashion Management Course at the first respondent's centre on the ground that she is not eligible for admission to the course as she does not belong to other backward classes (non-creamy layer) as per the list published by the Central Government. The petitioner has specifically contended at para 2 of the writ petition that the respondent is an institute constituted under Section 3 of the National Institute of 4 Fashion Technology Act, 2006 with an intend and object to promote quality and excellence in education and research in the area of fashion technology.
The petitioner completed her SSLC/matriculation examination in distinction with 92.96%. She has also stated that in pre-university examination she has secured 76.5%. Having completed her pre-university course, she opted for graduation in B.Sc. (FAD) (Bachelor of Science Fashion Art and Design). The petitioner has also stated at para 4 of the writ petition that she has secured 5th rank. The petitioner has also produced copy of provisional rank list dated 06.12.2019 as per Annexure-G. The respondent No.1 published the Admission Guidelines 2019/Admission Calendar 2019 for admission to several courses run by it including post graduate courses. The petitioner with a view to secure admission to the Master of Fashion 5 Management (MFM) Course offered by the respondents registered herself online and tendered her application. The petitioner claims benefit of reservation as backward class category IIIA. It is also stated at para 6 of the writ petition that this benefit is claimed by petitioner since her school days till completion of her degree. The contention of the petitioner at para 6 is that while applying for NIFT 2019 admission, in the application form only five categories were mentioned namely General, SC, ST, OBC (non-creamy) and general EWS. In this background, the petitioner had to bonafidely chose OBC (NCL) as there was no other option for backward classes. The petitioner attached her Caste and Income certificate in Form-F which is produced as Annexure-J. The petitioner appeared for written examination, group discussion and personal interview and accordingly, secured 65th rank. Subsequently, 6 she was called for counseling by respondent No.3 where she submitted all her certificates for document verification.
At para 7 of the writ petition, the petitioner has contended that the respondent No.3 had directed the petitioner to obtain OBC certificate in the format and directed that if the same is submitted on or before 17.07.2019, there would be no problem. The petitioner has accordingly submitted her undertaking by way of affidavit and as such, the respondent No.3 issued Admission Receipt receiving fee of 1st semester. However, it was brought to the notice of the petitioner that the admission was provisional. The reason for issuing admission provisionally is that the petitioner was required to furnish the degree certificate of the qualifying examination and only on production of degree certificate, her admission would be confirmed.
7
It is also stated at para 9 of the writ petition that copy of OBC certificate dated 04.07.2019 was furnished and accordingly, petitioner was permitted to attend orientation programme on 24.07.2019. However, respondents continued to show the admission of the petitioner as provisional and on verification, she was informed that her admission would be confirmed once she submits her final year B.Sc. FAD marks card. The respondent while insisting for production of marks card, however, did not raise any objection with regard to Caste certificate. The petitioner moved to Chennai and started attending the classes of MFM 1st semester. It appears at this juncture that a letter was addressed by the respondent dated 23.09.2019 stating that Christian (Martomite) does not figure in the list of OBCs as per Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment Resolution No.12011/88/98-BCC dated 06.12.1999 8 and therefore, the petitioner was called upon to furnish OBC (NCL) certificate. Though petitioner attended 1st semester examination, however, the results were not announced and when petitioner enquired, the respondents issued a show cause notice dated 20.01.2020 stating that petitioner has secured admission by misrepresentation and therefore, she was called upon to show cause why the admission should not be cancelled and consequently, fee deposit should not be forfeited.
The petitioner immediately rushed to Chennai along with her father and submitted her written reply on 23.01.2020. In the said reply, the petitioner tried to impress upon respondent No.4 that even Karnataka Examination Authority for KCET 2020 has considered Category III B as falling in OBC list and in this context, the petitioner tried to convince the respondents that the certificate furnished is genuine 9 and there is absolutely no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner to secure admission.
Inspite of detailed reply furnished by the petitioner, it appears respondents proceeded to issued an endorsement thereby canceling her admission to MFM course holding that she is not entitled to secure admission to MFM PG course on the ground that her community does not fall under OBC-NCL category. The petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned memorandum dated 24.06.2020 passed by respondent No.2 as per Annexure-B is before this Court.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned ASG for the respondents.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently argue and submit before this Court that the Caste Certificate furnished by the 10 petitioner is genuine and there is absolutely no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that the respondents were not justified in taking drastic steps by virtually canceling her admission. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner with a bonafide intention has proceeded with the course and the action initiated by the respondents is not within a reasonable time and in this context, the impugned memorandum as per Annexure-B would seriously prejudice the rights of the petitioner as well as the same would jeopardize her future. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also urge this Court that the petitioner is a meritorious candidate which is evident from the marks card and rank certificate and therefore, depriving her of admission at the middle of the course is unreasonable and unjustified. To buttress his argument, he would rely on the judgment 11 rendered by the Delhi High Court in the matter of VIBHAV KHARAGPURIA vs. SCHOOL OF PLANNING AND ARCHITECTURE (W.P.(C) 7037/2017 & CM APPL. 29218/2017) and would contend that in similar set of facts, the Delhi High Court granted admission to the students as there was no fault on the part of the students.
5. Per contra, Sri R.Shankaranarayanan, learned ASG appearing for the respondents would fairly submit to this Court that the material furnished at the time of securing admission would clearly indicate that she belongs to backward community as notified in Karnataka. However, the same is not notified under the Central list and it was in this background, the respondents were compelled to insist for appropriate certificate indicating that she belonged to backward community. Learned ASG, in all fairness, would submit to this Court that the petitioner belongs 12 to backward community and there is no much of a dispute. He would submit to this Court that Annexure-N which is placed on record by the petitioner is a document issued by the competent authority and would suffice and indicate that the petitioner belongs to backward community. The only apprehension that is expressed by the learned ASG is that however, in future, the students should not rely on the judgment of this Court as a precedent and seek a leniency in regard to furnishing of caste certificate. There is some force in the submission of learned ASG. He would also further submit that since the petitioner was permitted to take admission and the admission was notified as provisional for want of production of degree certificate, it would not be fair on the part of the respondents, at this stage, to insist for caste certificate from a competent authority. Learned ASG would also appreciate that it is not in the best interest 13 of the petitioner and if the admission is cancelled, it would virtually affect her career. He would also submit that though the community to which the petitioner belongs is not notified in the Central list, however, the respondents - authorities do not dispute that she belongs to backward community under the State list.
6. In the light of the submission made by Sri R.Shankaranarayanan, learned ASG, I am of the view that the impugned memorandum issued by the respondents thereby canceling the admission of the petitioner needs to be quashed. It is needless to state that this Court has exercised discretion having regard to the peculiar facts of the case. In the present case on hand, there was no dispute in regard to the Caste certificate. The respondents issued a provisional admission for want of marks card and not caste certificate to indicate that she belongs to backward 14 community. In the light of the statement made by the learned ASG, this Court would proceed to quash the impugned memorandum. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned Memorandum bearing No.18/NIFT/CHE/Admn. (2019-20)2005 dated
24.06.2020 passed by the respondent No.2 as per Annexure-B is quashed.
(iii) It is needless to say that in view of the order passed by this Court, the respondents are directed to declare the 1st semester results.
(iv) Any observations made by this Court in the course of the judgment is confined only to the present case on hand.
Sd/-
JUDGE CA