Karnataka High Court
Jasmine D.Ed College vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 February, 2019
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B.Veerappa
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA
W.P.Nos.21056-21158/2017 (EDN-RES)
C/W W.P.Nos.19906/2018 & 22040-22058/2018
(EDN-RES)
IN W.P.Nos.21056-21158/2017:
BETWEEN:
1. JASMINE D.ED COLLEGE
NEAR CENTRAL SCHOOL
KAMATHANA ROAD
BIDAR-585403
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR
MOHAMMED ANUF
SON OF MOHAMMED WASIF
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
2. BASAVATATVA D.ED COLLEGE
VIDYANAGAR BVB COLLEGE
ROAD BIDAR-585403
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR
VAJEYNATH SON OF DASRATH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
3. NIGHTINGALE KANNADA D.ED COLLEGE
(ENGLISH MEDIUM)
#9-5-416, CHIDRI ROAD,
BIDAR-585403
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR,
VIKAS PATHAK SON OF KALIDAS PATHAK
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
2
4. NOOR HINDI MEDIUM D.ED COLLEGE
NEAR HORTICULTURE CENTER,
HALLADKERI (K), HYD ROAD,
BIDAR-585401
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR
JEETHMAL RATHORE
SON OF RODULAL RATHORE,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI D.R. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPT OF PRIMARY AND HIGHER
SECONDARY EDUCATION
MS BUILDING, BANGALORE-01
2. DEPARTMENT OF STATE EDUCATIONAL
AND RESEARCH TRAINING
NO.4, 100 FT RING ROAD
BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE
BANGALORE-85
REPT. BY ITS REGISTRAR
3. DISTRICT INSTITUTE OF EDUCATIONAL
AND RESEARCH AND TRAINING
DIET NAUBAD BIDAR-585402
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL
4. DIRECTOR (OTHER EXAMINATIONS)
KARNATAKA SECONDARY EDUCATION EXAMINATION
BOARD, MALLESHWARAM
BANGALORE-560003
5. SUMAN KUMAR KUNWAR
S/O TRIBHUVAN KUNWAR,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
6. KIRAN KUMARI
S/O RAJ KUMAR MAHTO
3
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
7. DEVSHISH MULCHANDANI
S/O RAJESH SINDHI
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
8. CHHOTI KUMARI
S/O GANGA PRASAD YADAV
AGE 20 YEARS
9. RAM SAGUN YADAV
S/O CHULAHI YADAV
AGE 35 YEARS
10. RAJESH KUMAR MANDAL
S/O BHOGENDRA MANDAL
AGE 32 YEARS
11. SANTOSH KUMAR
S/O HARI NARAYAN SINGH
AGE 24 YEARS
12. TWINKLE KUMAR
S/O GANGA PRASAD YADAV
AGE 21 YEARS
13. RAKESH KUMAR YADAV
S/O RAM SWAROOP YADAV
AGE 25 YEARS
14. HARI NARYAN THAKUR
S/O KAPLESHWAR THAKUR
AGE 24 YEARS
15. IMRAN MULTANI
S/O MUNAVVER MULTANI
AGE 28 YEARS
16. LILA KUMARI
D/O SRIPRASAD YADAV
AGE 19 YEARS
17. SHIVCHANDRA YADAV
S/O RAM KHELEWAN YADAV
4
AGE 22 YEARS
18. SITA RAM YADAV
D/O GHURAN YADAV
AGE 25 YEARS
19. JYOTISH KUMAR KAMAT
S/O BASU DEO KAMAT
AGE 20 YEARS
20. DHIRENDRA MOHAN THAKUR
S/O MAHENDRA THAKUR
AGE 24 YEARS
21. ANIL KUMAR PASWAN
S/O JANAK PASWAN
AGE 23 YEARS
22. MS JYOTI BALA MEENA
D/O CHOTMAL MAL MEENA
AGE 17 YEARS
23. RANJIT KUMAR YADAV
S/O RAM NARAYAN YADAV
AGE 28 YEARS
24. RABINDRA KUMAR
S/O GANGAI YADAV
AGE 34 YEARS
25. LALU PRASAD
S/O RAMCHANDRA YADAV
AGE 20 YEARS
26. SUJEET KUMAR
S/O RAMAVTAR YADAV
AGE 30 YEARS
27. MS BARKHA PARETA
D/O MADAN LAL PARETA
AGE 24 YEARS
28. SURYA MUKHI
D/O RAM NARAYAN YADAV
5
AGE 19 YEARS
29. SARITA KUMARI
D/O BHARAT YADAV
AGE 19 YEARS
ALL RESIDING AT
JASMINE D.Ed. COLLEGE
NEAR CENTRAL SCHOOL
KAMTHANA ROAD, BIDAR-585403
30. SYED TOSIF ALI
S/O JAHID ALI
AGE 21 YEARS
31. RAHUL KUMAR KESHIYA
S/O BUDHHI RAM KANJAR
AGE 19 YEARS
32. MS HEMLATA SAINI
S/O BADRI LAL MALI
AGE 24 YEARS
33. SHAHZAD KHAN
S/O MURTAZA KHAN
AGE 22 YEARS
34. MOHAMMAD ASGAR KHAN
S/O ABID KHAN
AGE 19 YEARS
35. MS RAM SHILA DANGI
D/O PHOOL CHAND
AGE 18 YEARS
RESPONDENT Nos.5 TO 35 ARE
STUDENTS OF JASMINE D.Ed. COLLEGE
NEAR CENTRAL SCHOOL KAMATHANA
ROAD, BIDAR-585403.
36. MS RESHAM KHATANA
S/O RAMJI LAL KHATANA
AGE 18 YEARS
6
37. RANJEET KUMAR SINGH
S/O RAJ DEO SINGH
AGE 28 YEARS
38. LALAN KUMAR
S/O RAM DAYAL YADAV
AGE 21 YEARS
39. KARAN SINGH VERMA
S/O UNKAR LAL VERMA
AGE 21 YEARS
40. RAMAN KUMAR BHARTI
S/O RAMASHISH SINGH
AGE 28 YEARS
41. ANIL KUMAR
S/O JAGESHWAR YADAV
AGE 25 YEARS
42. RAKESH LODHA
S/O HARIRAM
AGE 21 YEARS
43. MUKESH LODHA
S/O HAJARI LAL
AGE 24 YEARS
44. RAKESH KUMAR
S/O KANIHYA LAL
AGE 24 YEARS
45. DAYA RAM MEHAR
S/O MOHAN LAL MEHAR
AGE 22 YEARS
46. HARIOM KUMAR SINGH
S/O SURYA NARAYAN SINGH
AGE 19 YEARS
47. KALYANI KUMARI
D/O PRAMOD KUMAR MAHTO
AGE 18 YEARS
7
48. SAVITA KUMARI
S/O HARISHCHANDRA MAHTO
AGE 22 YEARS
49. MUKESH KUMAR
S/O BUDHAN YADAV
AGE 21 YEARS
50. SANTOSH KUMAR MANDAL
S/O RAM BHADUR MANDAL
AGE 22 YEARS
51. REKHA PRIYADARSHANI
D/O LALI CHANDRA YADAV
AGE 24 YEARS
52. RAUSHAN KUMAR SINGH
S/O JIBCHH SINGH
AGE 25 YEARS
53. PARSHANTH KUMAR
S/O RAM BILAS YADAV
AGE 20 YEARS
54. SHADAB KHAN
S/O MOHAMMED RAEES
AGE 20 YEARS
55. RAKESH KUMAR YADAV
S/O RAM SAGAR YADAV
AGE 27 YEARS
56. SANGITA KUMARI
D/O MISRI LAL YADAV
AGE 23 YEARS
57. MS NAJA JAVED
D/O EMAMUDDIN JAVED
AGE 21 YEARS
58. RAM KUMAR YADAV
S/O LAXMI YADAV
AGE 28 YEARS
8
59. RAJIV RANJAN
S/O SHATRUGAN YADAV
AGE 24 YEARS
60. RAUSHAN KUMAR SAHU
S/O KISHORI SHAHU
AGE 25 YEARS
61. OMPRAKASH LODHA
S/O BIRAMCHAND LODHA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
62. MS RAMKANYA DANGI
S/O JAGANATH
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
RESPONDENT Nos.36 TO 62 ARE
STUDENTS OF BASVA TATVA EDUCATION
SOCIETYS D.Ed COLLEGE
B.V.B. COLLEGE ROAD,
VIDYA NAGAR BIDAR-585403
63. SHAMBANOLLA SUJATHA
D/O SANJEEVA REDDY,
AGE 17 YEARS
64. C BALRAM
S/O C. MALLAIAH
AGE 23 YEARS
65. MOHAMMED MAIBU PASHA
S/O MOHAMMED MAINODDIN
AGE 18 YEARS
66. PITLAM SAILEELA
D/O PITLAM PRATAP REDDY
AGE 17 YEARS
67. GONTI SHIVANI
D/O GONTI BHUMANNA
AGE 17 YEARS
68. BODAGAMA SANDHYA RANI
D/O BODAGAMA VITTAL REDDY
9
AGE 23 YEARS
69. B. BHARATH KUMAR
S/O RAMULU
AGE 19 YEARS
70. KOTHAPALLI BABU
S/O SHARANBHOOPAL
AGE 28 YEARS
71. PATLOLLA VEENA
D/O PATOLLA VISHWA MOHAN
AGE 22 YEARS
72. BANOTH HUNAJEE
S/O B FAKIRA
AGE 22 YEARS
73. BODDU ALEKHYA
D/O BODDU KISHAN
AGE 17 YEARS
74. VIJAYALAKSHMI SOMA
D/O S KALLAPPA
AGE 34 YEARS
75. YERRA NAGARANI
D/O YERRA SHANKARAPPA
AGE 23 YEARS
76. SRINIVAS D
S/O MOGULAIAH
AGE 30 YEARS
77. ADE KAILAS
S/O ADE KISHAN
AGE 25 YEARS
78. GOLLA MAMATHA
D/O G NANDAIAH
AGE 22 YEARS
79. SUMAIYYA SULTANA
D/O M.A.QAYYUM
10
AGE 27 YEARS
80. ARUKALI BHARATHKUMAR
S/O RAMULU
AGE 18 YEARS
81. JADAV GANPATH
S/O JADAV SHIVLAL
AGE 24 YEARS
82. THODSAM VISHWANATH
S/O KASHIRAM
AGE 23 YEARS
83. SHAHENAZ BEGUM
D/O MANSOOR KHAN
AGE 26 YEARS
RESPONDENT Nos.63 TO 83
ARE STUDENTS OF NIGHTINGALE
KANNADA D.ED COLLEGE
(ENGLISH MEDIUM)
DOOR No.9-5-416,
CHIDRI ROAD, BIDAR-585403
84. ARUN KUMAR SHARMA
S/O RAMESHVAR SHARMA,
AGE 21 YEARS
85. CHANDRAPAL SINGH JODHANA
S/O KAMAL SINGH JODHANA
AGE 18 YEARS
86. SHAMBHU DAYAL RATHOR
S/O BHAGIRATH RATHOR
AGE 18 YEARS
87. SHAVEJ KHAN
S/O AABID KHAN
AGE 17 YEARS
88. MANOJ SHARMA
S/O DURGA PRASAD SHARMA
11
AGE 17 YEARS
89. MADHUMITA DUTTA
D/O JAYAN SHANKAR DUTTA M
AGE 31 YEARS
90. DEVENDRA SINGH
S/O KALU SINGH
AGE 18 YEARS
91. MANUVAR MANSURY
S/O BAFAT MANSURY
AGE 21 YEARS
92. AMIT KUMAR GUPTA
S/O DADAN KUMAR GUPTA
AGE 23 YEARS
93. MS INDIRA KUMARI
D/O NAND LAL LOVAVANSHI
AGE 18 YEARS
94. DEVENDRA RATHORE
S/O BHERU LAL RATHORE
AGE 18 YEARS
95. DILIP PRAJAPATI
S/O RADHESHYAM PRAJAPATI
AGE 17 YEARS
96. VIJAYPAL SINGH JODHANA
S/O DILIP SINGH JODHANA
AGE 18 YEARS
97. KAMLESH KUMAR MEENA
S/O GENDI LAL MEENA
AGE 18 YEARS
98. MS BHAGWATI BHEEL
D/O GOPAL BHEEL
AGE 17 YEARS
99. VISHNU PRASAD
S/O KALURAM
12
AGE 22 YEARS
100. KM POOJA KUMARI
D/O MADAN KUMAR GUPTA
AGE 19 YEARS
101. ADIL KHAN
S/O NIZAMUDDIN
AGE 18 YEARS
102. KOUSHAL JAIN
S/O RAM LAL JAIN
AGE 23 YEARS
103. ABHAY GUPTA
S/O MUKUT BIHARI GUPTA
AGE 22 YEARS
104. AARTI VISHWAKARMA
D/O RADHESHAM VISHWKARMA
AGE 28 YEARS,
105. DEEPAK SONI
S/O LAL CHAND SONI
AGE 23 YEARS
106. LOKESH KUMAR SUMAN
S/O RAM PRAKASH SUMAN
AGE 19 YEARS
107. SUNIL KUMAR
S/O BHAWANI RAM PATIDAR
AGE 24 YEARS
108. RAMESHWAR SISODIYA
S/O KALU SINGH SISODIYA
AGE 21 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.84 TO 108 ARE
STUDENTS OF NOOR HINDI MEDIUM
D.ED COLLEGE, BIDAR-585401
NEAR HORTICULTURE CENTER
HALLADKERI (K), HYD ROAD
13
BIDAR-585401
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.M. GHATE, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI SAGAR RAMACHANDER, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R108)
These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ in the nature of
mandamus to declare that Rule 8 is unconstitutional and against
the law declared by the Supreme Court in the case of TMA Pai
Foundation and Prem Prakash Chand; and to direct respondents
to permit admission of respondents 5 to 108 for the D.Ed. course
from the academic year 2016-17.
W.P.Nos.19906/2018 & 22040-22058/2018
BETWEEN:
NIGHTINGALE KANNADA D.ED COLLEGE
(ENGLISH MEDIUM)
# 9-5-416, CHIDRI ROAD
BIDAR - 585 403
REPT. BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR
M.D. AMIR S/O M.D. ASGAR
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI D.R. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPT OF PRIMARY AND HIGHER EDUCATION
REPT BY ITS SECRETARY
M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. DEPARTMENT OF STATE EDUCATIONAL
& RESEARCH TRAINING
NO.4, 100 FT RING ROAD
14
BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE
BANGALORE - 560 085
REPT BY ITS PRINCIPAL
3. DISTRICT INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION
& RESEARCH AND TRAINING (DIET)
NAUBAD, BIDAR - 585 402
REPT BY ITS PRINCIPAL
4. DIRECTOR (OTHER EXAMINATIONS)
KARNATAKA SECONDARY EDUCATION
EXAMINATION BOARD
MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 036
5. PATEL GEETANJALI
D/O PATEL SHIVARAJ
AGE: 20 YEARS
6. JUNJUR KRUPA
D/O JUNJUR AMRUTH
AGE: 19 YEARS
7. KADIGARI RADHIKA
D/O K. PAPI REDDY
AGE: 28 YEARS
8. G. SWARUPA RANI
D/O G. BASWARAJ
AGE: 25 YEARS
9. JABINA BEE D/O KHASIM
AGE: 24 YEARS
10. A. SWETHA
D/O SUDHARSHAN
AGE: 23 YEARS
11. DESHMUKH SRILATHA
D/O DESHMUKH SANG SHETTY
AGE: 21 YEARS
12. DEEPA BAI
D/O NARSING RAO
AGE: 26 YEARS
15
13. RATHOD SUREKHA
D/O RAM RAO
AGE: 20 YEARS
14. BEGARI VIJAYALAKSHMI
D/O BEGARI BHEEMAIAH
AGE: 27 YEARS
15. GONGA SHIREESHA
D/O GONGA RAJU
AGE: 21 YEARS
16. M. SUJATHA
D/O M. NARAYAN
AGE: 30 YEARS
17. BIRRU SARITHA
D/O BIRRU BHUJANNA
AGE: 20 YEARS
18. SANTENOLLA VIJETHA
D/O SANTENOLLA GANGADHAR
AGE: 20 YEARS
19. SHANKU KRISHNA VENI
D/O SHANKU SRINIVAS
AGE: 21 YEARS
20. N. ANITHA D/O N. BHEEMAIH
AGE: 35 YEARS
21. BYAGARI VANAMALA
D/O BYAGARI ANANTHAIA
AGE: 30 YEARS
22. CHEVITOLLA DEVISRILARA
D/O CHVITOLLA SAILU
AGE: 21 YEARS
23. SHETKAR AAKANKSHA
D/O SHETKAR RAJASHKAR
AGE: 19 YEARS
16
RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO 23 ARE
STUDYING AT NIGHTINGALE KANNADA
D.ED. COLLEGE, 9-5-416,
CHIDRI ROAD, BIDAR - 585 403
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.M. GHATE, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
NOTICE TO R5 TO R23 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD. 22.5.18)
These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying to direct Respondent Nos.1 to 4 to
approve the admission of Respondent Nos.5 to 23 in the B.Ed.,
course commencing in the academic year 2017-18.
These petitions coming on for Orders this day, the Court
made the following:
ORDER
In W.P.Nos.21056-21158/2017 the petitioners have sought for the following prayers:
(a) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to declare that Rule 8 the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Appointment to Teachers' Certificate Higher Course (TCH) and Bachelor of Education Course, (B.Ed.) Rules, 1999; and
(b) Direct respondents to permit admission of respondents 5 to 108 for the D.Ed. course from the academic year 2016-17.
In W.P.Nos.19906 & 22040-22058/2018 the petitioners have sought for the following prayer: 17
(a) Direct Respondent Nos.1 to 4 to approve the admission of Respondent Nos.5 to 23 in the B.Ed., course commencing in the academic year 2017-18.
2. It is the case of first petitioner that the petitioner-institutions are recognized by the NCTE for conducting the course of Diploma in Education with an intake of 50 students, out of which 25 students are to be filled up by the Government through Centralized Admission Cell and remaining 25 seats for the Management. Since respondent Nos.3 and 4 did not permit the students to take up examination, the petitioners were constrained to file W.P.No.21056/2017. This Court granted interim order permitting the students to take up examinations for the academic year 2017-18. The Management filled up 25 seats under its quota and since no students were allotted by the Government and for various reasons 19 out of 25 seats in the Government Quota had been filled up by the Management. Respondent Nos.5 to 23 in 18 W.P.Nos.19906 & 22040-22058/2018 were filled up by the Management. out of Government quota and they have to undergo the Academic Training with eligibility as prescribed to take up examination. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court for the relief sought for.
3. The official respondents have not filed any objections.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is clear that the petitioner-institutions are having intake of 50 students, the failure of the Government to fill up the seats and the non-filling of the seats in the Government quota for any reason cannot compel the petitioner-Institutions to function with a truncated strength. The prescribing of fee structure is by keeping in mind the various aspects including the 19 payment of salary to the staff, both teaching and non- teaching. Any shortcoming will adversely affect to the entire system and as such prescribing of Government quota, fees, if were to be upheld, cannot be unreasonable, any way that the Government has to give prior sanction. As long as the Management is empowered to make admission, granting of prior permission cannot be construed as mandatory. My view is fortified by the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Goutham College of Education and others vs. The Government of Karnataka and others made in W.P.Nos.24153-171/2015 and connected matters dated 20.07.2016, wherein it is held that it does not indicate prior permission and even the permission cannot be refused unless there are candidates available in the Government quota to be filled up to the petitioner - colleges. In para-6 learned Single Judge of this Court held as under: 20 "6. The procedure for admission of candidates by the institution against the Government seats has been prescribed under Rule 7 of the Rules. For allotment of seats under the Government quota there would be counseling and further counseling as per Sub-Rule (8) of Rule 7 of the Rules and the Government is required to fill up all the seats under the said quota. However, the seats still remaining vacant would be filled up by the management only if the government issues specific orders in that regard. Sub-Rule (8) of Rule 7 of the Rules, which came to be amended from 19.07.2000, does not indicate that prior permission has to be obtained. Even otherwise, in the facts obtained in the present case, it would indicate that undisputedly, Government had not allotted all 50 candidates in order to complete its 50% quota from the eligible list available with it. It is also not the stand of the Government that there were candidates in the waiting list who were required to be allotted seats under the 50% quota to the petitioner-Colleges but for the filling of those seats by petitioners, they would have allotted such seats to those students who were in waiting list. But on the other hand, last date for admission to the course without penal fee as per the notification dated 09.12.2014 issued by the 21 University being 16.02.2015, Government had not taken steps to complete the process of allotment of candidates under 50% quota. As such, the petitioners-Colleges have admitted the students to the extent of shortfall and have sought permission of the Government by communication referred to herein supra. At that stage itself, Government could have either refused to accord permission or could have intimated the colleges about there being any other candidates available in the eligible list for being allotted to petitioners- Colleges. Neither of these two options came to be adopted by the Government. In that background, it cannot be said by the respondents that admission made by the petitioners-Colleges is to be nullified or cancelled."
6. In the case of M/s Rajiv Gandhi College of Education vs. Bangalore University and others made in W.P.Nos.45112-45160/2015 dated 03.11.2015, this Court at para-5 has held as under:
"5. As noticed earlier the B.Ed. Course is being run at the petitioner College with the recognition of N.C.T.E., affiliation of Bangalore University and number of students admitted to the Course in question does not exceed the 22 sanctioned intake of 100. Ninety eight students are admitted to the Course in question. When the Government has not utilized its quota for whatever reason, there cannot be any reason for the petitioner College to run the B.Ed. Course at the truncated intake capacity by confining itself only to the number of seats specified in the Management quota. In this undisputed factual scenario, I dispose of these petitions by directing the first respondent to announce the results of the respondent Nos.2 to 49 as expeditiously as possible and in any case within three weeks from the date of the issuance of the certified copy of today's order. Needless to observe that it is open to the first respondent to examine as to whether the respondent Nos.2 to 49 meet the eligibility criteria and the attendance requirements to appear for the examination. If any of them are found to be ineligible, the question of announcing their results would not arise at all."
7. Admittedly, the orders passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court stated supra has reached finality.
23
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the admission and scheme framed with regard to payment seats in the case of State of H.P. and others vs. Himachal Institute of Engg. and Technology, Kasumpti, Shimla reported in (1998) 8 SCC 501 has held as under:
"We had extracted the relevant paragraph from the decision of Unni Krishnan case which clearly stated that any vacancies still remaining after the cut-off date can be filled by the management. In the instant case also, there have been vacancies which have remained unfilled after the cut-off date and it would, therefore, be open to the management to fill them up in the manner they consider appropriate. The SLP will stand disposed of in the light of and as per directions in Unni Krishnan case."
9. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the prayer
(a) in W.P.Nos.21056-21158/2017 with regard to declaration of Rule 8 become academic. The official respondent Nos.1 to 4 are hereby directed to re-consider the approval of admissions of the students - respondent 24 Nos.5 to 108 for D.Ed. course for the academic year 2016-17 and students - respondent Nos.5 to 23 in D.Ed. course for the academic year 2017-18, taking into consideration the observations made by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also taking into consideration the career of the students and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE swk CT-RRJ