Karnataka High Court
M Monisha vs Karnataka Examinations Authority on 17 August, 2017
Author: Jayant Patel
Bench: Jayant Patel
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO.36913/2017(EDN-MED-ADM)
BETWEEN:
M MONISHA
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
D/O MK KISHORE
2ND MAIN, 9TH CROSS,
BASAVESHWARA BADAVANE
NEAR KSPL SCHOOL
HOSAPETE-583201
BALLARI DISTRICT
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.AJOY KUMAR PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY
SAMPIGE ROAD, 18TH CROSS,
MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU-560012
REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
2
2. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY
SAMPIGE ROAD, 18TH CROSS,
MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU-560012
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS AND QUASH
THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT AT ANNEX-H ISSUED
BY THE R-1 DTD.7.8.2017 AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, JAYANT PATEL J., PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking appropriate direction to quash and set aside the endorsement dated 7.8.2017 and it is prayed by the petitioner to direct the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner under 'Telugu Linguistic Minority Category'.
3
2. We have heard Mr.Ajoy Kumar Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.N.K.Ramesh, learned counsel for the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for both the sides are on agreement on the aspects that the present case is covered by the decision of this Court in WP No.36556/17 and allied matters wherein the following direction has been given:
"The petitioner has preferred the present petition seeking appropriate relief to quash the endorsement dated 10.8.2017 and to issue appropriate direction to the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for allotment of the seat to MBBS under Linguistic Minority in Telugu.
2. We have heard Mr.Nanja Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.N.K.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
3. It is undisputed position that the petitioner did not submit the affidavit in support of the application for showing her status as minority student. Application if not submitted with the requisite details as per the 4 Brochure would call for non-consideration. First round of counselling was over, second round of the conselling is yet to take place tomorrow. If the requisite details are not submitted as per Condition No.2 of the Brochure, those applications cannot be considered so as to fulfill the eligibility criteria and therefore we are not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that such defect can be termed as minor defect and it may be permitted to be cured and the application may be considered.
4. We may usefully refer to a decision of the Apex Court in case of Registrar General, Calcultta High Court Vs. Srinivas Prasad Shah and others in Civil Appeal No.4282/2013 wherein the Apex Court has taken the view that if the requisite certificate was not produced from the competent authority at the time when application was to be made and the candidate concerned is not considered, it cannot be said to be an error on the part of the Commission. In another decision of the Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of Rahul Prabhakar Vs. Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar & others, reported in AIR 1998 Punjab and Haryana 18, the majority view of the Full Bench was that the information in the Brochure has to be treated as binding and unless the condition of the Brochure is struck down, the Court would not amend the 5 provisions contained in the Brochure or will not rewrite the same. In our view, the condition in the Brochure as referred to hereinabove is clear on its own language. Further, non-furnishing of affidavit is one of the major defects. Hence, the action on the part of the respondent in not considering the eligibility of the petitioner on account of non- furnishing of requisite document cannot be said to be illegal which may call for interference in exercise of the power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further attempted to contend that even after exhausting all the eligible candidates of minority, if seats remain vacant, the candidate including the petitioner herein may be permitted to cure the defect and they may be considered as per the inter se merit of the respective minority student in the respective college.
6. Whereas Mr.N.K.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent under the instructions of the Officer of the respondent who is present in the Court, submitted that if the seats remain vacant after exhausting the eligible candidates and if this Court so directs, a separate counselling can be arranged for those who have made applications but could not cure the defect.6
7. In our view, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the seats to be lapsed since such may result wastage of seats and available resources. Hence, it is observed that after exhausting the list of all the eligible candidates if any seats remain vacant for the respective category, the respondent shall notify for curing of the defect by giving an opportunity to all the eligible candidates and at that stage the petitioner may also opt for such opportunity to cure the defect and thereafter a separate counselling on the basis of the inter se merit of the eligible candidates shall be considered for the left out minority seats of the respective minority colleges. In any case the outer limit admission fixed by the Apex Court will be followed by the respondent while undertaking the aforesaid exercise.
Hence, with the aforesaid observations and the direction, petition is disposed of accordingly."
4. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner voiced the grievance that though the petitioner is born in Karnataka State, she may not be deprived on the ground that her father's native State is Andhra Pradesh. Otherwise, as per the learned counsel, 7 she is a domicile of Karnataka State and she would meet with all the eligibility criteria of linguistic minority.
5. Whereas, learned counsel Mr.N.K.Ramesh, appearing for respondents as per instructions submits, the petitioner's case was not considered for linquistic minority for two fold reasons; one was that the petitioner did not claim quota under linquistic minority and another was that her father is native of Andhra Pradesh. He submitted that, so far as non-filling up of the relevant column, the case can be considered at par with the referred matter but, for the native State of her father, whether the petitioner would fulfill the eligibility criteria of linguistic minority or not is an aspect which may be considered by the Court.
6. We may record that in the Brochure, the criteria showing eligibility for linguistic minority, it has been stated as "linguistic minority reservation is applicable for 8 Tamil, Telugu, Kodava and Tulu' of Karnataka Origin and domicile candidates only".
7. The aforesaid shows that the candidate should be an origin of Karnataka and domicile of Karnataka. On the aspects of domicile of the petitioner, there is no dispute, but when it refers to the origin of Karnataka it is for the candidate concerned, and not his or her father or mother because, once a candidate is born in Karnataka, it is not possible to hold that the candidate does not belong to Karnataka origin. Under the circumstances, we find that the petitioner would meet with the criteria for eligibility under the linguistic minority but, of course, in the separate counseling as observed by us hereinabove together with other similarly situated candidates if the seats are left after exhausting seats in the second round of counseling for minority students of the respective colleges. 9
8. Hence, it is observed that the case of the petitioner shall also be considered at par with the above referred group of matters of W.P.No.36556/2017 and others and she shall not be treated as ineligible on account of the fact that her father's native place is Andhra Pradesh since she is born in Karnataka. Of course, it would be open to the respondent-authority to verify the birth certificate for finding out as to whether the petitioner is born in Karnataka or not.
The petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Sk/-