Karnataka High Court
Rajiv Gandhi University Of Health ... vs S.Nijalingappa Institute Of Dental ... on 8 June, 2017
Author: B.V.Nagarathna
Bench: B.V.Nagarathna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2017
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A.PATIL
WRIT APPEAL Nos.200209-200229/2016
C/W
WRIT APPEAL Nos.200233-200237/2016
& 200240-249/2016
C/W
WRIT APPEAL Nos.200194-200208/2016
In Writ Appeal Nos.200209-200229/2016
BETWEEN:
Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences,
4th T Block, Jayanagar,
Bangalore-560041.
Represented by its Registrar. ...APPELLANT
(By Sri N.K. Ramesh, Advocate)
AND:
1. S. Nijalingappa Institute of Dental Science
and Research, Sedam Road, Kalaburagi,
Kalaburagi.
2
2. Principal S. Nijalingappa Institute of Dental Science
and Research, Sedam Road, Kalaburagi,
Kalaburagi.
3. Anugraha P D/o Varghese Paul,
Age : 21 Years,
Occ : Student,
Kalaburagi.
4. B Bhargavi D/o Durgaprasad
Age : 20 Years,
Occ : Student,
Kalaburagi.
5. Babbru Prudvi D/o Devendra Oud,
Age : 21 Years,
Occ : Student,
Kalaburagi.
6. Varakantam Preethi D/o V Sudarshan Reddy,
Age : 20 Years,
Occ : Student,
Kalaburagi.
7. Bhavani Aspalli D/o Sugurappa Aspalli,
Age : 19 Years,
Occ : Student,
Kalaburagi.
8. Gade Meghana Reddy D/o G Ravi Kiran Reddy,
Age : 19 Years,
Occ : Student,
Kalaburagi.
9. Jishnu A.P. S/o Krishna Janakripa A.P.,
Age : 21 Years,
Occ : Student,
Kalaburagi.
3
10. P.S Mani Madhuri D/o P. Suresh,
Age : 21 Years,
Occ : Student,
Kalaburagi.
11. Laxmi D/o Basavaraj Machetty,
Age : 20 Years,
Occ : Student,
Kalaburagi.
12. Sneha Patil
D/o Dhirendra Kumar Singh,
Age : 21 Years,
Occ : Student,
Kalaburagi.
13. Medapati Mounika
D/o M. Srinivas Reddy
Age : 19 Years,
Occ : Student,
Kalaburagi.
14. Pathalavathi Sucharita
D/o Laxman,
Age : 19 Years,
Occ : Student,
Kalaburagi.
15. Syed Ahmed Khadri
S/o Syed Abdul Khadri,
Age : 20 Years,
Occ : Student,
Kalaburagi.
16. Afroz Begum D/o Maqdum Patel,
Age : 19 Years,
Occ : Student,
Kalaburagi.
4
17. Syed Ameena Shahen
D/o Syed Javeed Hussain,
Age : 22 Years,
Occ : Student,
Kalaburagi.
18. Poonam D/o Manohar Waghmod,
Age : 20 Years,
Occ : Student,
Kalaburagi.
19. Prerana Patil D/o Uma Mahesh Patil,
Age : 20 Years,
Occ : Student,
Kalaburagi.
20. Priyanka Lahoti
D/o Janardhan Lahoti,
Age : 19 Years,
Occ Student,
Kalaburagi.
21. K. Bala Pranati
D/o Dayakar Reddy
Age : 19 Years,
Occ Student,
Kalaburagi.
Respondents 1 to 20 are all
Student Studying in First year
BDS Course at S. Nijalingappa
Institute of Dental Science & Research,
Sedam Road, Kalaburagi - 585 101.
22. State of Karnataka,
By its Principal Secretary,
Medical Education,
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Vikasa Soudha, Bangalore - 560 001.
5
23. The Dental Council of India
Iwan-e-Galibmarg, Kotla Road,
New Delhi - 110 002,
Represented by its Secretary. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Sri R.S. Kadaganchi, Advocate for R-1 to R-21;
Sri Shivaputra Udbalkar, HCGP for R-22,
Smt. Archana P. Tiwari, AGA for R-23)
These Writ Appeals are filed U/S. 4 of the Karnataka
High Court Act, praying to set aside the order dated
17.06.2016 passed by the Learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.207399-403/2015 and W.P.No.207467-481/2015,
wherein the Learned Single Judge has directed the Anti-
Corruption Bureau, to investigate into the functioning of
the appellant, particularly the role of the Registrar and the
Vice-Chancellor and to Register FIR against them.
In Writ Appeal Nos.200233-200237/2016
& 200240-249/2016
BETWEEN:
1. S.B. Patil Dental
College and Hospital,
Naubad, Bidar - 585 402,
Represented by its
Principal Dr. Dinesh Sharma,
Aged about 47 years, Bidar.
2. Mr. Arbaz Shaikh
S/o Mr. Rashid Minya Shaik,
Aged about 21 years,Bidar.
3. Ms. Ruikar Rutuja
D/o Mr. Sanjay,
Aged about 21 years, Bidar.
6
4. Ms. Priyanka Patnaik
D/o Mr. Prasanna Kumar Parnaik,
Aged about 20 years, Bidar.
5. Ms. Sivanepally Sri Priya Sravya
D/o Mr. S. Phani Prakash,
Aged about 21 years,
Bidar.
6. Ms. Kolhe Pranita
D/o Mr. Goroba,
Aged about 22 years,
Bidar.
7. Ms. Smrity Sinha
D/o Mr. Sharda Nand Sinha,
Aged about 23 years,
Bidar.
8. Ms. Nirgudi Akshata
D/o Mr. Audhoot,
Aged about 21 years,
Bidar.
9. Ms. Jitta Havila Sowjanya
D/o Mr. Jitta Venkata Ramana Rao
Aged about 19 years,
Bidar.
10. Ms. Mohameed
Ayesha Siddiqua
D/o Mr. Md. Rafeeq Siddiqui,
Aged about 21 years,
Bidar.
11. Ms. L. Shikha
D/o Mr. L Rajesh Kumar,
Aged about 22 years, District Bidar.
7
12. Ms. Hadiya Nabela Sarwat
D/o Mr. Abdul Vakeel,
Aged about 19 years,
Bidar.
13. Ms. Sana Vakeel
D/o Mr. Abdul Vakeel,
Aged about 20 years,
Bidar.
14. Ms. Khatod Ashwini
D/o Mr. Datta Prasas,
Aged about 21 years,
Bidar.
15. R. Zanwar Krishna
S/o Mr. Gopal,
Aged about 21 years,
Appellants 2 to 15 are all
students studying in First year BDS Course
at S.B. Patil Dental College And Hospital,
Naubad, Bidar - 585 402, Bidar. ...APPELLANTS
(By Sri R.S. Kadaganchi, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
By its Principal Secretary,
Medical Education,
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
Vikasa Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Dental Council Of India
Iwan-E- Galibmarg,
Kotla Road, New Delhi - 110 002,
Represented by its Secretary.
8
3. Rajiv Gandhi University
of Health Sciences for Karnataka,
4th T Block, Jayanagar,
Bangalore-560 041,
Represented by its Registrar,
Bengaluru City. RESPONDENTS
(By Sri Shivaputra Udbalkar, HCGP for R-1;
Smt. Archana P. Tiwari, AGA for R2,
Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, Advocate for R3)
These Writ Appeals are filed U/S. 4 of the Karnataka
High Court Act, praying to set aside the order dated
17.06.2016 passed in W.P.No.203589-603/2015 by the
Learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble without following the
orders passed in W.P.No.51937-938 of 2013 & connected
matters.
In Writ Appeal Nos.200194-200208/2016
BETWEEN:
Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences,
4th T Block, Jayanagar,
Bangalore - 560 041,
Represented by its Registrar. ...APPELLANT
(By Sri N.K. Ramesh, Advocate)
AND:
1. S.B. Patil Dental College and Hospital,
Naubad, Bidar - 585 402,
Represented by its
Principal Dr. Dinesh Sharma,
Aged 41 years.
2. Mr. Arbaz Shaikh
S/o Mr. Rashid Minya Shaik,
Aged about 20 years.
9
3. Ms. Ruikar Rutuja D/o Mr. Sanjay,
Aged about 20 years.
4. Ms. Priyanka Patanaik
D/o Mr. Prasanna Kumar Parnaik,
Aged about 19 years.
5. Ms. Sivanepally Sri Priya Sravya
D/o Mr. S. Phani Prakash,
Aged about 19 years.
6. Ms. Kolhe Pranita D/o Mr. Gorobha,
Aged about 19 years.
7. Ms. Smrity Sinha
D/o Mr. Sharda Nand Sinha,
Aged about 19 years.
8. Ms. Nirgudi Akshata
D/o Mr. Audhoot
Aged about 20 years.
9. Ms. Jitta Havila Sowjanya
D/o Mr. Jitta Venkata Ramana Rao
Aged about 18 years.
10. Ms. Mohameed Ayesha Siddiqua
D/o Mr. Md. Rafeeq Siddiqui,
Aged about 20 years.
11. Ms. L. Shikha
D/o Mr. L Rajesh,
Aged about 19 years.
12. Ms. Hadiya Nabela Sarwat
D/o Mr. Abdul Vakeel,
Aged about 18 years.
13. Ms. Sana Vakeel
D/o Mr. Abdul Vakeel,
Aged about 19 years.
10
14. Ms. Khatod Ashwini
D/o Mr. Datta Paras,
Aged about 20 years.
15. R. Zanwar Krishna
S/o Mr. Gopal,
Aged about 20 years.
Respondents 3 to 15 are all
students studying in First year BDS Course
at S.B. Patil Dental College and Hospital,
Naubad, Bidar - 585 402.
16. State of Karnataka
By its Principal Secretary,
Medical Education,
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Vikasa Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 001.
17. The Dental Council Of India,
Iwan-e- Galibmarg,
Kotla Road, New Delhi - 110 002,
Represented by its Secretary.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Sri R.S. Kadaganchi, Advocate for R-1 to R-15;
Sri Shivaputra Udbalkar, HCGP for R-16,
Smt. Archana P. Tiwari, AGA for R-17)
These Writ Appeals are filed U/S. 4 of the Karnataka
High Court Act, praying to set aside the order dated
17.06.2016 passed by the Learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.203589-203603/2015, wherein the Learned Single
Judge has directed the Anti-Corruption Bureau, to
investigate into the functioning of the Appellant,
particularly the role of the Registrar and the Vice-
Chancellor and to Register FIR against them .
11
These Appeals are coming on for Orders this day,
Nagarathna J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Though the writ appeals are listed for orders, with consent of learned counsel for respective parties, they are heard finally.
2. Writ appeal Nos.200209-200229/2016 and writ appeal Nos.200194-200208/2016 are filed by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (hereinafter, referred to as the "University" for the sake of brevity), while, Writ Appeal Nos.200233-200237/2016 and 200240-249/2016 are filed by S.B. Patil Dental College and Hospital and the Students of the said college.
3. These writ appeals assail order dated 17.06.2016, passed in Writ Petition Nos.207399-403/2015 & 207467-481/2015 and Writ Petition Nos.203589- 203603/2015. The said writ petitions have been preferred by S. Nijalingappa Institute of Dental Science and Research along with certain students of that Institute, and 12 S.B. Patil Dental College and Hospital along with certain students of that college. In the writ petitions, the petitioners have assailed the endorsement, while seeking a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus to the University, to approve the admissions of the petitioner- students for the academic year 2013-14, insofar as, the S. Nijalingappa Institute of Dental Science and Research is concerned and for the academic year 2014-15 as far as the students of S.B. Patil Dental College and Hospital is concerned. They have also assailed communication dated 4.3.2015 and 4.6.2015 issued by the University and have sought a direction for approving the admissions of the petitioner-students.
4. Learned counsel for the respective parties submit at the Bar that in the writ petitions, the students have been permitted to appear for the examination. Subsequently, their results have also been declared, of course, subject to the result of the writ petitions. However, these writ appeals assail order dated 17.06.2016 passed in the writ petitions, by which, Hon'ble Single Judge 13 has directed the Anti Corruption Bureau (hereinafter, referred to as the "Bureau") of the State Government, to investigate the functioning of the University in particular, the role of the Registrar and Vice Chancellor of the University, as to how the University permitted the Dental Colleges throughout the State of Karnataka to admit such students, who have not appeared in the competitive examination and whose admissions are stated to be in violation of Regulation-II of the Regulations of 2007, established by the Dental Council of India. The Bureau has been directed to investigate any underhand dealings between the University and the Dental Colleges. If any illegality or occurrence of any offence is discovered by the Bureau, to register FIR against the offenders and to complete the investigation in accordance with law. A direction has been issued to the Additional Director General of the Bureau, to personally supervise the investigation. In addition, a direction has been issued to the Bureau, to submit monthly report with regard to the said investigation. The report has to be submitted by the 14 Additional Director General, of the Bureau and the investigation is to be monitored by this Court.
5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid directions, these writ appeals have been preferred. By order dated 11.07.2016, the impugned order as well as the directions referred to above have been stayed pending disposal of the writ petitions.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the University and learned counsel for the Colleges, as well as the students, learned Government Pleader for the State, learned counsel for Dental Council of India and perused the material on record.
7. While adverting to the impugned directions, learned counsel for the appellant-University, submitted that admission to the Bachelor of Dental Science (BDS) is made by the colleges. The University has a limited role only with regard to the approval of admissions. But while granting approval of the admissions, the University is bound by the Regulations of Dental Council of India. That 15 there are two eligible criteria for admission: first, to secure at least 50% in the qualifying examination, which is either pre-university and second, to appear in a competitive examination, such as Common Entrance test, which is conducted by the Karnataka Examination Authority or COMED-K and to obtain at least 50% in that examination. It is only thereafter, that the students would be counseled and admissions would be made to the colleges. That the unfilled seats are made over to the respective college- managements by the State Government for being filled at their end and the University has to only approve the admissions. He therefore submitted that the University was justified in issuing endorsements to the students by not approving their admissions. Learned single Judge, instead of appreciating that aspect of the matter, has directed an investigation into the affairs of the University. He contended that such directions of an expansive and sweeping nature during the pendency of the writ petitions could not have been issued by the learned single Judge which has caused great prejudice to the University. In 16 support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Kerala and Others vs. President, Parent Teachers Association SNUVP School and Others, [((2013) 2 SCC 705], by drawing our attention to Paragraph Nos.18 and 20, which read as under :-
"18. Even though the Division Bench was not justified in directing police intervention, the situation that has unfolded in this case is the one that we get in many aided schools in the State, though not all, obtain staff fixation order through bogus admissions and misrepresentation of facts. Due to the irregular fixation of staff, the State exchequer incurs heavy financial burden by way of pay and allowances. The State has also to expend public money in connection with the payment of various scholarships, lump sum grant, noon- feeding, free books, etc., to the bogus students."
x x x "20. Investigation by the police with regard to verification of the school admission, register etc., particularly with regard to the admissions of the students in the aided schools will give a wrong signal even to the students studying in the aided schools and the presence of the police itself is not conducive to the academic atmosphere of the schools. In such circumstances, we are inclined to set aside the directions given by the Division Bench for 17 police intervention for verification of the student strength in all the aided schools.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the respective colleges and the students, supported the submission made by the University. They drew our attention to the Consensual Agreement entered into between the professional colleges and the State Government under which the State Government permits the colleges to admit the students who have academic merit in the qualifying examination although, they may not have appeared in the entrance test i.e., (Competitive Examination), so as to ensure that the unfilled seats are not wasted in the colleges. The unfilled seats are transferred by the State Government to the colleges for being filled up. When the same is permitted by the State Government, the University may not have any objection with regard to the filing up of such seats in terms of the Consensual Agreement. They contended that writ petitions are pending adjudication and that they may even be allowed in favour of the students and the colleges and during the pendency of the writ 18 petitions, learned single Judge could not have issued the impugned directions against the University.
9. Learned Government Pleader also endorsed the submissions of the learned counsel for the colleges and the students, by stating that the Consensual Agreement indeed contains such a condition and colleges are at liberty to admit students to the unfilled seats, so that the said seats do not go wasted.
10. Learned counsel for Dental Council of India submits that, the Council has no independent stand with regard to the impugned directions issued against the Rajiv Gandhi University, with regard to investigation as contained in order dated 17.06.2016 and that an appropriate order may be made in these cases.
11. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the material on record, at the out set, we observe that these appeals do not concern the issue of approval of admissions of the 19 students in the respective colleges. The appeals pertain only to the directions issued by the learned single Judge for conducting an investigation against the University, particularly, Registrar and Vice Chancellor by the Additional Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau. A detailed narration of facts and contentions need not be reiterated. But we find that in the instant case, it is the University, which has issued the endorsement to the students stating that their admissions cannot be approved and has declined approval on the basis of the Regulations of Dental Council of India. It is the colleges and the students who have approached this Court seeking approval of their admissions. The writ petitions are pending before the learned single Judge. But we find it strange that during the pendency of the writ petitions, the directions were issued by the learned single Judge against the University, the Registrar and Vice Chancellor of the University, so as to investigate by the Anti Corruption Bureau, under the supervision of the Additional Director 20 General, particularly when no reasons have been assigned for doing so.
12. It is submitted by learned counsel for the University that, all that the University did in the instant case was to decline approval of the admissions of the students based on the Regulations issued by the Dental Council of India. Whereas, the stand of the State as well as the colleges and the students is that their admissions have been made pursuant to the Consensual Agreement entered into between the State Government and the private colleges for the relevant years under consideration namely, 2013-14 and 2014-15. It is pursuant to the Consensual Agreement, that the admissions have been made. These are the aspects which ought to have been considered on merits in the writ petitions by the learned single Judge i.e., with regard to the stand taken by the University in declining approval of the admissions or whether the University was not right in declining approval and grant relief to the students and colleges. But we find 21 it peculiar that the learned single Judge directed an investigation against the University during the pendency of the writ petitions. Such directions, in our view, would call for interference in the instant case, particularly, when the issue is at large pending adjudication, not only before the learned single Judge but we are told at the Bar that the matters are also pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, we find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the University, who has contended that the impugned directions against the University were uncalled for, as they touch upon the reputation of the University, which is concerned with the maintenance of standards of professional education in medical sciences in the State of Karnataka.
13. In the decision referred to above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has noted that investigation by the police with regard to the verification of school admissions, register etc., particularly, with regard to the admissions of the students in the aided schools, would give a wrong 22 impression of the school, even to the students studying in the aided schools and the presence of the police itself is not conducive to the academic atmosphere of the school. In fact, in the afore cited decision Hon'ble Supreme Court also has held that the High Court was not justified in directing police intervention and it is for the State to take note of such aspects. Though the aforesaid decision is in the context of an aided school, we find that the said decision is apposite even in the case of the appellant- University. In light of the above discussion, we are inclined to set aside the directions issued by the learned single Judge regarding investigation by the Bureau. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 17.06.2016 is set aside. Accordingly, the writ appeals are allowed. No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE RSP