Karnataka High Court
G.P. Hemantha Kumar vs The Selection Committee For Admission ... on 1 September, 1980
Equivalent citations: AIR1981KANT22, 1980(2)KARLJ405, AIR 1981 KARNATAKA 22, (1980) 2 KANT LJ 405
ORDER
1. The petitioner was intimated on August 27th, 1978 that he had been selected to the M. B. B. S. Course and allotted a seat in the Government Medical College at Mysore. He had also been selected for B. Tech. (Metalurgical Engineering in Karnataka Regional Engineering College, Surathkal, and was required to join that College on or before 28th August, 1978.
2. In the light of the selection and admission to M. B. B. S. Degree Course at Mysore, he joined that Course forsaking his selection to B. Tech. (Metalurgical Engineering) Course at Surathkal.
3. By another intimation dated 9th February, 1979 he was informed that his selection to the M. B. B. S. Course was cancelled. The said intimation was accompanied by what was described as Selection Notification. From the said notification. it is seen that on account of the direction issued by this Court in W. P. No. 9780/1978, one Smt. Rajeshwari was admitted to the M. B . B. S. Course in one of the Government Medical Colleges in Karnataka. The direction of this Court was to admit the said Rajeshwari in supersession of the selection and admission made by the Selection Committee-1st respondent, of one Nijaguna Basappa Aralikatti who was the 2nd respondent in the writ petition of Rajeshwari or in addition to his selection. It was further clarified in the said notification that the said Nijaguna Basappa Aralikatti who belonged to Scheduled Tribe category did not join the College after the selection and as there was no other candidate available in that category, the reserved seat, therefore, stood transferred to backward community pool, as a result of which the petitioner got selected. In the result his seat was to be cancelled and Smt. Rajeshwari had to be accommodated in supersession of his selection. It was also clarified in that notification that admission of Smt. Rajeshwari would be subject to the condition that the Indian Medical Council and the University of Mysore would not object and further that she would take the risk in the matter of requirement of attendance.
4. Aggrieved by the said communication accompanied with the notification, a true copy of which is produced at Annexure-B to the petition, the petitioner having no other alternative remedy, has approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution contending inter alia that the impugned notification canceling his selection was contrary to the directions of this Court in W. P. No. 9780/ 1978 and also is violation of the rules of natural justice inasmuch as the petitioner was not heard by the Selection Committee in the matter of cancellation, more so, when be was not a party to the proceedings in this Court in W. P. No. 9780/1978. It is also urged for the petitioner that the 1st respondent-Selection Committee arbitrarily chose to supersede the selection made by it when the High Court had a choice to provide a seat to Smt. Rajeshwari in addition to the seat of the petitioner in W. P. No. 9780/1978 if it was possible. It is, therefore, the contention of the petitioner that as two seats were available in the Mysore Medical College. The Selection Committee should have made the selection and allotment of Smt. Raieshwari in addition to and not in supersession of the selection of the petitioner.
5. The 1st respondent-Selection Committee has not filed any statement of objections, nor the 2nd respondent-Principal, Government, Medical College, Mysore. However, Smt. Rajeshwari-3rd respondent herein has filed her statement of objections. She has stated that the selection of the petitioner being provisional, the petitioner could not claim any vested right to the seat and as she had been attending classes regularly after admission to the Medical College, the petitioner could not possibly have any grievance against heir selection and admission to Mysore Medical College which was pursuant to the order made by this Court and which cannot be disturbed.
6. On 28-2-1979 this Court issued rule nisi and gave interim direction to continue the petitioner in the 2nd respondent's Medical College at Mysore subject to the final result of the writ petition. On a number of occasions, though the petition was listed for hearing it was not reached and it was only on 20-6-1980 the case was heard in part. At the time of hearing it was brought to the notice of the Court that two seats had become vacant in the Government Medical College in the 1978 1 Year M. B. B. S. batch on account of the unfortunate accidental death of two students in the 1978 batch of I Year M. B. B. S. Course and therefore there would be no need to cancel the selection of the petitioner as well as his continuance in the College would not either affect the quota fixed for the Course by the Indian Medical Council or in any other way interfere with the rights of other selected candidates. In the light of the said submission. Shri G. R. Nataraj, learned High Court Government Pleader, was directed to verify and submit whether that, in fact, was the position.
7. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner was supported by production of a list of candidates who were selected and allotted to 2nd respondent's College in the year 1978 for I Year M. B. B. S. Course. A copy of the list was served on the Counsel for respondents. This was done when the petition came up for hearing subsequently in the month of July, 1980. The learned High Court Government Pleader took time to verify the same.
8. The matter now coming up for hearing today, the Counsel for respondent-3 and Counsel for petitioner are present. The learned High Court Government Pleader is also present. As earlier stated, on objection has been filed in the case nor is the correctness of the current list of the 1978-79 I Year M. B. B. S. Course in the Mysore Medical College as listed by the petitioners Counsel contradicted or denied. From the list it is seen that as on the date in July, 1980 there were only 97 students while the sanctioned strength is 100, thus providing vacancy of three seats.
9. A learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Asha Rokade v. State of Mysore (W. P. No. 2829 of 1972, decided on 28-8-1973) has taken the view that on the construction of the relevant Rules for selection to the Medical Course in the relevant year that if for any reason a seat had become vacant within the prescribed quota and that seat could be filled by another candidate eligible for that seat, then the same could not be denied on any ground whatsoever as medical education being very important, no seat in the prescribed quota should go waste. That decision, on appeal by the State was confirmed by the Division Bench and has been followed in subsequent writ petitions.
10. In the instant case, in the absence of any material placed before the Court by respondents 1 and 2 that there are no vacancies whatsoever in the batch of 1978-79 and regard being had to the fact that both the petitioner and the 3rd respondent have taken their I year M. B. B. S. Examination and have continued in the 2nd year, it is but appropriate to extend the principle enunciated in Asha Rokade's cash and quash that part of the notification which is at Exhibit-B which has cancelled the selection of the petitioner to the I Year M. B. B. S. Course for the academic year 1978-79 and direct the 1st respondent Selection Committee and the 2nd respondent-Principal, Government Medical College, Mysore, to confirm his selection and allow him to complete the Course in accordance with the provisions made in that behalf by the University of Mysore.
11. The view of this Court expressed in Asha Rokade's case stands affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Charles K. S. Aria v. C. Mathew, (AIR 1980 SC 1230) to the effect that we must try to avoid driving out the student half-way through their course and see that no costly seat for advanced studies in which the community as whole has a stake was wasted. It is ordered accordingly and rule is made absolute.
12. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.
13. Petition allowed.