Karnataka High Court
M. Saleem Amjad vs State Of Karnataka And Another on 4 April, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1998(4)KARLJ88
Author: Tirath S. Thakur
Bench: Tirath S. Thakur
ORDER
1. The petitioner hails from Andhra Pradesh. He was selected on a scholarship for study in a school at Bellary in Karnataka, where he studied for 5 years and passed his 12th Standard examination from the Central Board of Secondary Education. He applied for admission against a medical seat and appeared in the CET Examination in which he emerged at Rank No. 87 in the over all rank list. He wanted his case to be considered for a free seat as a Karnataka student on the basis that he had studied in Karnataka for a period of 5 years. This the authorities were not prepared to do for according to the rules regulating the admissions to such courses, and as per the amendment brought to the said rules in the year 1996, unless a student has studied in Karnataka for a period of seven years, he is not qualified to be considered as a Karnataka student eligible for admission against a free seat. Aggrieved the petitioner filed W.P. No. 20875 of 1996 claiming a mandamus from this Court on the ground that he was entitled to be admitted against the Karnataka students category on account of his having studied here for a period of 5 years. This Court however did not find favour with this submission and held that the petitioner was entitled to be considered only against 15% seats reserved for non Karnataka students subject to his eligibility. The Court also repelled the challenge to the rule on the ground of the same being arbitrary. The order passed by this Court is brief and may be reproduced in extenso.
ORDER "The question raised is already pending adjudication before the Supreme Court. In the present case the petitioners hails from Andhra Pradesh. They have appeared at the common entrance test held by the 2nd respondent for admission to Medical/Dental/Engineering courses in the State. In view of the order passed by the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 364 of 1996 on 17-6-1996 the petitioners will be entitled to be admitted against 15% of non Karnataka student seats subject to their eligibility. None the less, the present writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners on the ground that since they have studied for 5 years in the State of Karnataka, therefore, they should be declared as eligible for getting a seat as Karnataka student as defined under Rule 4(1) of the Rules or the exemptions enumerated therein. Admittedly, on the facts pleaded by the petitioners and as per the said rules, the petitioners do not fulfil any of the conditions either for declaring them to be Karnataka students or for any exemptions contained therein. The learned Counsel for the petitioners assails the said rule on the ground that it is arbitrary. I do not find any good ground to accept the said contention. Writ petitions are accordingly dismissed".
2. Undeterred the petitioner has filed the present writ petition reiterating the relevant facts as also the plea urged by him previously. The only improvement he has now made in the writ petition is in the relief sought in which he has prayed for striking down amendment to Rule 4(1) brought about by notification dated 19th May, 1996. He has also questioned the amendment to Rule 2(4). Clause (1) of Rule 4 of the Karnataka Rules, 1993 as violative of Article 14.
3. Mr. Veerabhadrappa, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the dismissal of the earlier writ petition notwithstanding, the present writ petition was maintainable. He submitted that the material difference between the position as it existed on the date the earlier order was passed and the date the present writ petition was filed was that the Supreme Court had on 9th August, 1996 passed an order in T.M.A. Pai Foundation's case, directing that the norms, terms and condition governing admission to Medical Colleges for the previous year shall continue to remain applicable even for the academic session 96-97.
This order according to the learned Counsel justified the filing of the present writ petition no matter the essential facts on which the previous writ petition filed are identical to the present. I am not however impressed by this submission. In T.M.A. Pai Foundation v State of Karnataka, the Supreme Court gave certain directions for purposes of admission to medical and other colleges for academic year 1995-96. The direction which is for our purposes relevant, is found in para 20(3)(a) which reads thus:
"The restriction placed by the 1995 amendment to the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Engineering, Medical, Dental, Pharmacy and Nursing Courses Rules, 1993, viz., that only Karnataka students (as defined by the said Rules) shall be admitted against the payment seats shall not operate for the current academic year. Among the fifty per cent payment seats, we have allocated fifteen per cent to N.R.I./foreign students (direction (1)). Out of the balance thirty-five per cent seats, twenty per cent-shall be reserved for Karnataka students and remaining fifteen per cent for non-Karnataka students, -- as was done during the previous academic year. The admission of Karnataka students against the payment seats shall be made in accordance with the scheme framed in Unnikrishnan J.P. v State of Andhra Pradesh, out of the students who have appeared in the entrance test already held. If any of the seats in this twenty per cent remains vacant, they shall be added to the fifteen per cent quota of non-Karnataka students and shall be filled in accordance with clause (b) below".
4. The above direction was subsequently continued by the Supreme Court for the academic Session 1996-97 also. The continuance of the directions for the subsequent academic year does not in my opinion constitute a circumstance or a development which can possibly give rise to a separate cause of action for the petitioner to maintain a separate writ petition. The earlier writ petition claiming a right to seek admission in the Karnataka category against a free seat having been examined and dismissed on merits, a second petition on the same subject matter involving the same questions of fact and law would be clearly barred by the principles of res judicata. Even the cosmetic additions that have been made to the present writ petition by way of a challenge to the validity of the rules is only meant to somehow provide a basis for a second round. This is so because a similar challenge was advanced in the previous petition also. The Court had specifically noted the challenge to the rules on the ground of being arbitrary and clearly rejected the same. Even assuming that the challenge to the validity of the rules is a feature which is new to the present writ petition, the same would not make the present writ petition maintainable for the principles of constructive res judicata would prevent the petitioner from filing multiple petitions one after the other depending upon the argument the petitioner may wish to advance at different stages. Law does not encourage multiple petitions on the same subject matter. The fact that the petitioner had filed an appeal against the previous order but withdrawn the same also shows that the previous petition has been finally heard and disposed of on its merits.
5. Even otherwise, the entire case set up by the petitioner is that the amendment to the rules making 10 years period of study for being treated as a Karnataka student has been stayed by the Supreme Court in the judgment referred to above. A careful reading of the order passed by their Lordships however shows that all that has been done is to remove the restriction placed by the 1995 Amendment to the rules whereunder only Karnataka students were entitled to be admitted against the payment seats. The rules as they stood after the 1995 amendment envisaged admission of only Karnataka students, against free and payment seats category. The order of the Supreme Court however, suspends the effect of the said rules only in so far as payment seats are concerned. The position that emerges after the said order is that the provisions contained in the rules, to the effect that 6nly Karnataka Students can be considered for admission for payment seats no longer remains effective. Consequently, even non-Karnataka students, to the extent of the prescribed percentage have been rendered eligible for consideration. The interpretation being placed by the petitioner upon the order of the Supreme Court therefore does not stand a closer scrutiny, for there is no room for holding that the restriction placed by the amended rules upon consideration/admission of candidates against free seats has also been removed. In the circumstances therefore even if the present writ petition were to be treated to be maintainable, there is no reason for me to take a view different from the one taken by Bharuka, J., while dismissing the earlier petition.
6. The writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed but in the circumstances of the case without any orders as to costs.