Karnataka High Court
Ms Soja Panicker vs State Of Karnataka on 3 June, 2022
Author: Alok Aradhe
Bench: Alok Aradhe
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M. KHAZI
W.P. NO.43003 OF 2017 (EDN-MED-ADM)
BETWEEN:
MS. SOJA PANICKER
D/O MR. GEORGE PANICKER P.O,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
RESIDING AT PEZHINVILA HOUSE
CHEERANKAVU P.O., KUNDARA
KOLLAM DISTRICT.
... PETITIONER
(BY MR. M.A. SABASTIAN, ADV.,)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
MEDICAL EDUCATION
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.
2. M/S. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH "T" BLOCK, JAYNAGAR
BENGALURU-560041
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
3. ADMISSION OVERSEEING COMMITTEE
18TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD
MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560012.
2
4. M/S. SGR TECHNICAL & EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY
NO.111/1, SGR COLLEGE MAIN ROAD
MUNNEKOLALA, MARTAHALLI POST
BENGALURU-560037
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON.
5. DR. SHYAMALA REDDY DENTAL COLLEGE
HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE
NO.111/1, SGR COLLEGE MAIN ROAD
MUNNEKOLALA, MARTAHALLI POST
BENGALURU-560037
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. LAXMINARAYANA, AGA FOR R1
MS/MRS. NAYANASHREE, ADV., FOR
MR. ASHOK N. NAYAK, ADV., FOR R2
MR. K. LOKESH, ADV., FOR
MR. K. VIJAYAKUMAR, ADV., FOR R4 & R5
NOTICE TO R3 D/W)
---
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNEX-A DTD.15.9.2017 AND DIRECT
THE R-3 TO INITIATE ACTION GAINST THE R-4 AND 5 AS PER
LAW. DIRECT THE R-4 AND 5 TO REFUND THE SUM OF
RS.13,80,000/- ALONG WITH INTEREST CALCULATED AT THE
RATE OF 18% P.A. FROM THE DATES OF RESPECTIVE PAYMENTS.
DIRECT THE R-4 AND 5 TO PAY A SUM OF RS.5,00,000/-
TOWARDS THE LOSS OF ACADEMIC PROSPECTS BY THE
COMPLAINANT ON ACCOUNT OF THE MISREPRESENTATION OF
THE RESPONDENT & ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of the order dated 15.09.2017 passed by 3 Admission Overseeing Committee. The petitioner in addition seeks a direction to respondent Nos.4 and 5 to refund a sum of Rs..13,80,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum as well as compensation of Rs.5 Lakhs for loss of academic prospects. The petitioner also seeks a direction to return the transfer certificate and migration certificate of the petitioner so that the petitioner can take admission in another institution.
2. Facts giving rise to filing of this petition briefly stated are that admittedly, the petitioner participated in the COMED-K test. However, it appears that by a communication dated 19.06.2014 she was granted admission in BDS course (Bachelor of Dental Surgery) in the institution run by respondent Nos.5. The petitioner took admission in the institution run by respondent No.5-Society. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner between the period from 24.03.2015 to 16.09.2014 has paid a sum of Rs.13,80,000/-, which includes the amount towards the tuition fee as well as hostel expenses. It is the case of the petitioner that even though full fee has been recovered from the petitioner, which 4 was payable for academic Session 2014-15, yet the complainant was not permitted to appear in the examination of first year BDS course. It is further case of the petitioner that she could not appear for the examination conducted by the University on account of misrepresentation of respondent Nos.4 and 5. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has filed the petition seeking the reliefs as stated supra.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner appeared in the COMED-K examination. However, she was admitted to the BDS course run by respondent No.5-Society. It is further submitted that the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.13,80,000/- to respondent Nos.4 and 5 for the academic year 2014-15, however, the petitioner was not permitted to appear in the examination. Therefore, respondent Nos.4 and 5 should be directed to refund the amount, which is payable to the petitioner . It is also submitted that the Admission Overseeing Committee has directed registration of a criminal case against respondent Nos.4 and 5. It is also urged that the petitioner is entitled to 5 compensation. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in 'MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA VS. GCRG MEMORIAL TRUST AND OTHERS', AIR 2017 SC 5838.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5 submitted that the petitioner was one of the appellant in Writ Appeal No.2096/2015 and her admission to BDS course was approved by the Rajiv Gandhi University for Health Sciences. It is also pointed out that the petitioner had prosecuted first year BDS course. It is submitted that the petitioner had on her own left the course and had sought the migration certificate.
5. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. This Court by an order dated 08.12.2017 directed respondent Nos.4 and 5 to return the original migration and transfer certificate to the petitioner. It is not in dispute that in compliance of the aforesaid order the original migration and transfer certificate has been returned to the petitioner. The only issue, which survives for consideration in this petition is with regard to 6 refund of Rs.13,80,000/- as well as compensation of Rs.5 lakhs. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner had prosecuted the first year BDS course in the institution, however, the petitioner did not appear in the first year examination.
6. It is the case of the petitioner that she was not permitted to appear in the first year BDS examination. Be that as it may, in case the petitioner was not permitted to appear in the first year BDS examination, she ought to have taken recourse to the appropriate remedy with regard to her grievance of appearance in the examination. Admittedly, the admission of the petitioner to the BDS course has been regularized and has been held to be valid by a division bench of this court vide order dated 10.07.2015 passed in Writ Appeal No.20416-26/2015. It is pertinent to note here that the petitioner herself was a party to the writ appeal and was arraigned as appellant No.8. The petitioner has prosecuted the first year BDS course, therefore, she is not entitled to seek refund of the amount deposited by her and the compensation as claimed by her. The decision in MEDICAL 7 COUNCIL OF INDIA supra has no application to the facts of the case as in the aforesaid case, the High Court had issued a direction to the management to admit the students in the course, however, subsequently the same was annulled. Therefore, the Supreme Court directed payment of amount of compensation.
7. In the instant case, the admission of the petitioner to the BDS course was not cancelled and she prosecuted the studies of first year BDS examination. Section 58 of the Karnataka Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Determination of Fee) Act, 2006 permits the Admission Overseeing Committee to examine any irregularity in process of admission, however, the same does not empower the committee to grant refund of fee. Therefore, the order passed by the Fee Regulatory Committee dated 15.09.2017 does not suffer from any infirmity.
In view of preceding analysis, we do not find any ground to entertain this writ petition. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to prosecute her remedy in view of 8 the order passed by the Admission Overseeing Committee. With the aforesaid liberty, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE SS