Karnataka High Court
Naseema Institute Of Speech vs State Of Karnataka on 6 August, 2012
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY
WRIT PETITION NOS. 38935 - 939 & 38940 - 941
OF 2011 (EDN-EX)
BETWEEN
1. NASEEMA INSTITUTE OF SPEECH
AND HEARING, NO.11, AVS COMPOUND
80 FEET ROAD, IV BLOCK, KORAMANGALA
BANGALORE. REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN
MR U T ZULFIKAR ALI
2. MS AMENEH KARGAR
D/O MR ABDOL ALI
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
NO.928, 4TH CROSS, 9TH D MAIN
HRBR LAYOUT, KALYAN NAGAR
BANGALORE.
3. MS ROOBINEE SUNDA SELOM
D/O SUNDA SELOM SINIWASEN
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
NO.6591-B, JALA NELOR, BAGAN JERMAL
12300 BUTTERWORTH, PULAU
PIANANG, MALAYSIA.
4. MS NAOMI NISHA
D/O MR THAVA BALAKRISHNAN
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
NO.22, PESIARIAN BAKER
5, PAMAN BULUH EMAS
30100 IPOH, MALAYSIA
2
5. MS VEESHWANEE ROOMALLAH
D/O MR DEOLLAL ROOMALLAH
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
99, AVEDANSANT RTE PALMA
QUARTRE, BORNES, MAURITIUS
6. MS SOPHIA SHABONA KALAIMANI
D/O MR KALAIMANI KRISHNAN
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
NO.126, ANGGERIK,
21 TAMAN JOHOR JAYA
8110 JOHOR BHARU DARUL
TAKZIM, MALAYSIA.
7. MR V RAGHAVENDRA PRASAD
S/O VENKOBA RAO
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
NO.13/21, 2ND CROSS,
OPP PARK, NEHRU COLONY,
BELLARY,
PETITIONER NO.3 TO 7
ARE PRESENTLY AT: NO.11,
AVS COMPOUND 80 FEET ROAD,
IV BLOCK, KORAMANGALA,
BANGALORE.
... PETITIONERS
(By M/S. KAMAL & BHANU, ADVOCATES)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
(HIGHER EDUCATION)
BANGALORE-560001.
2. BANGALORE UNIVERSITY
JNANABHARATHI CAMPUS
JNANABHARATHI
BANGALORE.
REP BY ITS REGISTRAR
3
3. THE REHABILITATION COUNCIL OF INDIA
A STATUTORY BODY UNDER
THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL,
JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT
NO.22, QUTUB INSTITUTIONAL AREA
NEW DELHI REP BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY.
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. N B VISWANATH, AGA FOR R1
SMT. JYOTHI M, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE R2 UNIVERSITY TO ISSUE ELIGIBILITY
CERTIFICATE AND ADMISSION APPROVAL IN RESPECT OF THE
PETITIONERS NO.2 TO 7; AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR
PRL.HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The 1st petitioner Institution affiliated to the 2nd respondent-Bangalore University obtained a Certificate of Approval dt. 13.5.2009 Annexure-A from the 3rd respondent-Rehabilitation Council of India according approval for three academic years 2009-10; 2010-11 and 2011-12 to commence the four years course of Bachelor in Audiology and Speech Language Pathology (BASLP) with an intake of 30 students subject to removing the shortcomings mentioned in the said 4 certificate before the commencement of the programme under intimation to the council failing which the course would be derecognized. 1st petitioner states that it has admitted, amongst others, petitioners No.2 to 7 to the aforesaid course during the academic year 2011-12 and the applications over the said admissions, were submitted online between 12.7.2011 to 8.8.2011 to the 2nd respondent, vide Annexures-C1 to C6, together with eligibility and transfer fee of Rs.51,127/-. It is the allegation of the 1st petitioner that despite complying with requirements of law, the 2nd respondent- University failed to issue eligibility and approval to admit petitioners 2 to 7 and as the examinations were scheduled to be held during October/November, 2011, Annexure-E, have presented these petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent - Bangalore University to issue the eligibility certificate and approval to admit petitioners 2 to 7.
5
2. Petitions are opposed by filing statement of objections of 2nd respondent inter alia, while, admitting the affiliation of the 1st petitioner Institution, nevertheless denied receipt of Rs.51,127/- towards eligibility and approval fees though Rs.22,780/- was paid, (learned counsel for 2nd respondent submits that the figures Rs.19,780/- in para 4 of the statement of objections is incorrect, and ought to be read as Rs.22,780/-). It is further stated that the application of the 5th petitioner and others were received on 25.7.2011 while letters dt. 14.9.2011 and 10.10.2011 were not received. According to the 2nd respondent, endorsement dt. 1.8.2011 and 16.8.2011 though issued calling upon the 1st petitioner to furnish all necessary documents and certificates as shown against the names of each of the persons who sought transfer of admission, are not complied. In addition, it is stated that the 1st petitioner did not furnish the AIU (Association of Indian University) letter clarifying that 6 the course studied by petitioners 2 to 7 were equivalent to 10 + 2 and eligible to pursue undergraduate course in the Bangalore University.
3. The order sheet dt. 15.10.2011 records the question for consideration to be, as regards to the eligibility of students in view of the rival contentions and if students are not eligible and if not permitted to appear for examination scheduled would cause no harm to the petitioners but if on the other hand if the petitioners have the requisite eligibility, not permitting them to appear for the examination would cause prejudice and loss to the petitioners and harm to the students. Petitioners were directed to file affidavits undertaking not to claim equities in the event they were found to be ineligible.
4. In compliance with the said order, petitioners 2 to 7 have filed affidavits of even date 20.9.2011 7 undertaking that they would not claim equity in the event they are found to be ineligible to pursue BASLP course for the academic year 2011-12.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings. The admission application forms Annexures-C1 to C6 said to be in respect of petitioners 2 to 7 do not disclose the particulars of the qualifying examination except marks obtained therein. It is not in dispute that petitioners 2 to 6 being foreign nationals and petitioner No.7 an Indian national, non- Karnataka student, are required to secure eligibility certificates from the Bangalore University for admission to the Undergraduate course. According to the Bangalore University the 2nd petitioner an Iranian National having crossed the age limit of 22 years in terms of the University guidelines, is ineligible for admission to the BASLP course; 3rd petitioner a Malasian national having not studied Physics as a 8 subject in the qualifying examination is disqualified for admission to BASLP course; 4th and 6th petitioners are also Malasian nationals having not produced the letter from the Association of Indian University as regards equivalence of the qualifying examination with that of the University requirement of 10 + 2 are ineligible; 5th petitioner, it is stated, did not produce copy of 'A' level marks card; while 7th petitioner did not produce the marks card and Transfer certificate as well as migration certificate, hence approval was not accorded to the admission of petitioners 2 to 7.
6. Admittedly petitioner has not placed on record the letter of the Association of Indian University clarifying that the course leading to qualifying examination, studied by each of the petitioners are equivalent to 10 + 2 to be eligible to admission to Undergraduate course in Bangalore University. 9
7. Regard being had to the requirements of the Bangalore University, indeed it is for the 1st petitioner to ensure that all necessary and relevant material be placed before Bangalore University-2nd respondent, for a consideration over the issue of eligibility certificate and approval of admission of petitioners 2 to 7 to the BASLP course and if complied by the 1st petitioner on or before 31.8.2012, 2nd respondent is directed to consider the same and pass orders in accordance with law. If petitioners 2 to 7 are found to be eligible, 2nd respondent is directed to forthwith declare their results.
Petitions are accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE ln