Karnataka High Court
Srinivas Institute Of Medical Sciences ... vs State Of Karnataka on 23 September, 2024
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. N.V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO.1565 OF 2023 (EDN-MED-ADM)
BETWEEN:
1. SRINIVAS INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES
AND RESEARCH CENTRE
A UNIT OF A. SHARMA RAO FOUNDATION
SRINIVASANAGAR, MUKKA
SURATHKAL, MANGALORE - 574 146
REPRESENTED BY ITS DEAN
DR. UDAYA KUMAR RAO
AGE 63 YEARS
2. DR. BHAVANA T
D/O T. CHANDRA SHEKAR REDDY
AGE: 22 YEARS
R/O NO 25, FIRST FLOOR
SEETHAPATHI COLONY, WEST MAREDPALLI
NEHRUNAGAR, SECUNDERABAD
HYDERABAD
TELANGANA - 500 026
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI K.G. RAGHAVAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
SRI ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT
DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION
M.S. BUILDING
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
-2-
BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
2. DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION
BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND
RESEARCH INSTITUTE
(OLD BUILDING)
1ST FLOOR, FORT, K.R. ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.
3. KARNATAKA EXAMAINATIONS AUTHORITY
SAMPIGE ROAD, 18TH CROSS
MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU- 560 012
REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.
4. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION
POCKET - 14, SECTOR 8, DWARAKA PHASE - I
NEW DELHI - 110 077
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
5. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE
4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 070
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA FOR R1 & 2,
SRI N.K. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3,
SRI N. KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R4 &
SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
---
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT No.1, 2 AND 3 TO ENABLE THE WEB PORTAL OF THE RESPONDENT No.3 AND THEREBY TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER INSTITUTION TO UPLOAD THE DETAILS OF THE PETITIONER No.2 AS A CANDIDATE ADMITTED TO THE COURSE M.S.-OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2022-23, ADMITTED ON 02.12.2022 BY THE PETITIONER INSTITUTIONS & ETC.
-3- THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND C.A.V. JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA) In this Writ Petition, the petitioner No.1 is the Institute of Medical Sciences, whereas petitioner No.2 is the student who sought for, and got admission in the first petitioner-College, in the course of Master of Surgery-Obstetrics & Gynecology.
2. What is prayed in the petition is to issue direction to respondent No.2 and 3 who are the State of Karnataka, Director of Medical Education and Karnataka Examination Authority respectively, to enable the web-portal of respondent No.3-Karnataka Examination Authority (KEA), thereby to permit the petitioner No.1 to upload the details of petitioner No.2 as a candidate to the course of Master of Surgery-Obstetrics & Gynecology (MS-OBG) for the academic year 2022-2023. -4- 2.1 The next prayer is to direct respondent No.5-Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences to consider and approve the admission of petitioner No.2 who was admitted to the aforementioned course in petitioner No.1-Institute on 2nd December 2022.
3. The facts are important. It is stated that the petitioner No.1 is a premier medical institution established to cater the need for medical facility to the society, runs a multi-specialty hospital and manages as associate Medical College in Mangalore Taluka of Dakshina Kannada District. The Hospital has twenty Departments and the College has intake capacity of 150 students at under-graduate level, whereas 41 post- graduate medical seats are available in various subjects. The Institute is affiliated to respondent No.5-University. 3.1 It is averred that respondent No.4-National Medical Commission conducts the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test for admission to the post-graduate seats (NEET-PG), whereas respondent No.3-KEA is entrusted with the task of conduction common counseling to the eligible candidates. It was stated that the process for admission to the post-graduate courses in Medicine for the academic years 2022, was -5- announced to be conducted in centralised manner in the different category seats. The counseling was conducted in three rounds, including the mop-up round of counseling. At the end of mop-up round, the seats which remained vacant could be filled at the level of Institution. The College or Institution may grant admission from the list of registered and verified but un-allotted candidates, it was stated, and the details of un- allotted candidates would be communicated by the KEA. 3.2 The KEA issued Notifications dated 19th November 2022, 20th November 2022 and 21st November 2022 notifying the mop-up round, under which Notifications, registrations of fresh candidates, who had not applied earlier, were called for in order to enable them to participate in the counseling. The date for forwarding the names to the Medical Colleges was fixed to the 26th November 2022 and the last date for admission was notified to be 2nd December 2022. It deserves mention at this stage that by Notification dated 10th January 2023. The Medical Counseling Committee extended the last date for admission to PG Medical courses to 14th January 2023. 3.3 The petitioner No.2 had appeared in the NEET and having secured Rank No.105677, was seeking the admission -6- to the Post-Graduate courses. The petitioner by applying on 15th November 2022 registered herself with the KEA or the mop-up counsel, and also completed the document verification on 17th November 2022. The NEET Scorecard of the petitioner figures on record, who participated in the mop-up round conducted on 23rd November 2022 to 25th November 2022. Having not been allotted any seat in the mop-up, he was considered by KEA to be un-allotted candidate. 3.4 It was further stated that KEA permits the Institutions/Colleges to grant admission to vacant seats subsequent to mop-up round counseling from the list of registered/un-allotted candidates. The petitioner stated that in all 6 seats in MS-OBG branch were available at petitioner No.1, and that 1 seat remained vacant to be filled in at petitioner No.1 level post mop-up round. Several candidates had approached petitioner No.1-Institution seeking admission. The process was continued by the Institution upto 2nd December 2022. It is stated that as far as the admission to 1 seat remaining in MS- OBG after mop-up counseling, the same was to be undertaken from the registered un-allotted candidate's academic eligibility allotment status and inter se merits.
-7-3.5 It is the case that the petitioner NO.2 student was granted admission on 2nd December 2022 by the Institution upon verification of eligibility etc. and accepting the tuition fees of `10 lakhs. The provisional admission letter dated 2nd December 2022 is part of the record of the petitioner, so also the tuition fees receipt. It was further stated that when the petitioner No.1-Institution proceeded to upload the name of the petitioner No.2 on the web-portal of the KEA as per the procedure prescribed in the columns of 'PGET No.' and 'Name', at such stage, it was detected that name of one candidate Dr. Chaitra G. was mistakenly entered, although the said candidate Dr. Chaitra was not for and did not want MS- OBG seat.
3.6 It is the case of the petitioner that having not paid any fees, the petitioner-Institution wanted to delete the name of said Dr. Chaitra and wanted to enter the name of petitioner No.2-Dr. Bhavana P. However, it was averred, on account of error in the web-portal, re-entering the name of petitioner No.2 by deleting the earlier entry of Dr. Chaitra did not become possible, as the name of Dr. Chaitra was blocked, which was shown by producing on record of the petitioner, a screen-shot copy of the web-portal.
-8-3.7 The petitioner No.2-Dr. Bhavana T., was shown to be provisionally admitted in the first year MS-Obstetrics and Gynecology, under management quota and provisional admission certification dated 02.12.2022 was given by the dean of petitioner No.1-Institute since then petitioner No.2 paid tuition fees of `10,00,000/- which is shown to be paid by cheque No.670353 dated 02.12.2022 of the Axis Bank. 3.8 Respondent No.3-Karnataka Examinations Authority (KEA), filed statement of objections, in which it was inter alia contended that the claim of the petitioners that there was a mistake in uploading the name of petitioner No.2 was not only mischievous but contrary to their own records. Petitioner No.2 was registered with KEA for allotment of seat through counseling process but was not allotted any seats in three rounds of counseling, it was stated. It was further stated that her name was included in the list of the unallotted candidates to enable her to participate in the stray vacancy round. It was stated that the colleges were permitted to make admission as against vacant seats upto the last date which was 02.12.2022 and to upload the admissions so made in the web portal of respondent No.3.
-9-3.8.1 It was further stated that one Dr. Chaithra G. was given admission on the last date of prescribed, which was the only seat vacant and available. It was stated that petitioner No.1- College collected fee of ` 75,15,000/-, from the said candidate and uploaded the details along with the fee receipt. Consequently, it was stated, National Medical Commission also uploaded on its website the factum of admission. It was contended that therefore entire process of admission in the college was completed and it was not permissible for the college to alter the admissions granted. It was stated that out of total six seats in M.S.(Obstetrics and Gynecology) available in the college, three seats allotted to KEA and other three seats were filled up by the management.
3.8.2 Respondent No.3-KEA stated that it was only on 09.12.2022 that petitioner No.1 addressed E-mail to respondent No.2 claiming that the uploading of name of Dr. Chaithra G. was an inadvertent error because of network connectivity. It was contended that it was only on 12.01.2023 that the E-mail was addressed to KEA to change the name of Dr. Chaithra G., and to mention the name of Dr. Bhavana T. On 13.01.2023, Dr. Chaithra G. informed the college that she
- 10 -
was not interested in pursuing the PG Course. It was contended by the KEA that all these actions and circumstances give rise to suspicion about regularity in admitting petitioner No.2.
3.9 Respondent No.4-National Medical Commission also filed its statement of objections and it also repeated the claim of petitioner No.1-Institute that the name of Dr. Chaithra G. was uploaded by mistake, for that she was never student of the college in the MS (Obstetrics and Gynecology) degree course. It was sought to be highlighted that what was stated in paragraph 8 of the petition and what was intimated by Dr. Chaithra G. by her E-mail dated 13.01.2023 did not match. 3.9.1 It was next contended that fee receipt of petitioner No.2 was uploaded on 02.12.2022 and admission order was also generated on same date which was not possible and it suggested that the admission was given even as the petitioner had never paid the fees at that time. It was contended that when Dr. Chaithra G. had paid fees and thereby took admission on 02.12.2022, question of granting admission to petitioner No.2 was not to arise as there was no vacancy.
- 11 -
3.9.2 It was further contended that the admission of petitioner No.2 by petitioner No.1 was surreptitiously given and it was falsely suggested that petitioner No.2 was duly admitted on the last date, that is 02.12.2022. The factum of admission of petitioner No.2, it was further contended, was not acceptable since it is not backed by material on record.
4. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. K.G. Raghavan with learned advocate Mr. Abhishek Malipatil for the petitioners, learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Mamatha Shetty for respondent Nos.1 and 2, learned advocate Mr. N.K. Ramesh for respondent No.3, learned advocate Mr. N. Khetty for respondent No.4 and learned advocate Smt. Farah Fathima for respondent No.5 at length.
4.1.1 Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners raised following submissions,
(i) It was only an error in not uploading the details of petitioner No.2 as a candidate admitted to the course of M.S. - Obstetrics and Gynaecology for the year 2022-23, instead the name of Dr. Chaithra G. was mistakenly entered in the web- portal of KEA, although petitioner No.2 was admitted on 02.12.2022.
- 12 -
(ii) The error of uploading the name of Dr. Chaithra G. instead of petitioner No.2-Dr. Bhavana T., did not cause any prejudice to either of Chaithra G. or any other student.
(iii) Petitioner No.2 could be legitimately granted admission on the seat which remained vacant after all rounds of counselling.
(iv) There was no taker of the seat including Dr. Chaithra G. who never came forward.
(v) The mistake was genuine and not deliberate in uploading the name of Dr. Chaithra G. Petitioner No.2-Dr. Bhavana T. was admitted that she has paid fees.
(vi) None has been the aggrieved students except petitioner No.2 before this Court.
(vii) No prejudice would be caused to the respondent- Authorities or any other students, if the admission granted to the petitioner No.2 is approved by the authorities. 4.1.2 Learned Senior Advocate also appeared for both the petitioners, defended the action on part of the petitioner No.1- institute by submitting that the Institute had immediately
- 13 -
informed respondents on 02.12.2022 about the mistake of entering the name of Dr. Chaithra G. on the portal of the KEA. He submitted that the National Medical Commission (NMC) by notification dated 10.01.2023 had extended the date for last submissions to the Post-Graduate Medical Courses from 02.12.2022 to 14.01.2023 and that petitioner No.1-College received communications on 12.01.2023 and 13.01.2023, which were immediately after the extension of the date of admission, asking the KEA to permit the change of name of petitioner No.2 in place of Dr. Chaithra G. 4.1.3 It was further submitted that, petitioner No.1 entered the name of petitioner No.2 duly and correctly on the web-portal of the NMC which was reflected in the Public Notice issued by the NMC which gave the details of the students admitted through NEET PG. The NMC in its notification dated 01.12.2022, acknowledged the fact that the wrong entries could be made on the web-portal and allowed all the colleges to make corrections within two days. It was submitted that petitioner No.1 did not grant admission to Dr. Chaithra G. nor collected any fees from her, nor even collected any original documents.
- 14 -
4.2 Learned advocates for respondent No.3-KEA and respondent No.4-NMC elaborated their submissions on the basis of the contents and contentions stated in their respective statement of objections cum affidavit in reply, inter alia seeking to highlight that the admission of petitioner No.2 on the claimed vacant seat in the discipline of MS (Obstetrics & Gynecology) course was a bungled by in the process of admission and that the management of petitioner No.1-College managed to induct petitioner No.2 although there was no vacant seat available.
5. The chronology of events may be recollected. 5.1 On 19/09/2022, the KEA notified e-Information Bulleting NEET PG 2022/ NEET MDS 2022. KEA permitted admissions to PG-Medical seats that have remained vacant after all the rounds of counseling, to be done at the institution level. That the petitioner No.2 was registered with the KEA, verified and was unallotted candidate in all rounds of counseling. Eligibility of petitioner No.2 was not doubted by the respondents. 5.1.1 On 23/11/2022, the Mop-up round of counseling was conducted by the KEA. The seats which remained vacant were made over to petitioner No.1-Institution to be filled up from the list of candidates registered and verified but unallotted
- 15 -
candidates, to be filled up within the last date, which was 02/12/2022.
5.1.2 The last date for admission to PG-Medical course was notified as 02/12/2022 by the NMC/KEA. Out of total of 6 seats in the subject available with the Petitioner Institution, 1 seat had remained vacant to be filled at the institution level. That petitioner No.2 was allotted the said vacant seat after verification of the eligibility, interse merit. At the time of uploading the name of petitioner No.2 on to the web portal of the KEA, it was noticed that name of Dr. Chaitra G. was mistakenly reflected.
5.1.3 On 03/12/2022, the NMC by Notification dtd.01/12/2022 notifying the procedure for the 'Online filling of information relating to admission made in Medical Colleges/Postgraduate Institutes for postgraduate medical courses for the academic year 2022-23'. The name of Petitioner No.2 was uploaded on the portal of the NMC and not the name of Dr. Chaitra G. 5.1.4 On 08/12/2022 and 09/12/2022, the representations were made to the KEA intimating the admission granted to Petitioner No.2.
- 16 -
5.1.5 On 10/01/2023, the Central Government extended the last date for admission to PG Medical courses from 02/12/2022 to 14/01/2023. On 12/01/2023, the petitioner Institution has issued several representations to the KEA bringing to their notice that the changed circumstances and to enable the petitioner to make the necessary changes on the web portal of the KEA.
5.1.6 On 13/01/2023, Dr.Chaitra G. made a representation regarding the discontinuation of the admission and for removal of her name from the portal. On 14/01/2023, since the last date for making changes in the web portal of the KEA is notified, the petitioner institution has made representations dtd.13/01/2023 and 14/01/2023 requesting the respondent KEA to permit uploading of the details of petitioner No.2 in its web- portal. The KEA has enabled portal of other similarly placed institutions but did not accede to the requests of the petitioner institution.
5.2 Whether the admission of petitioner No.2-Dr. Bhavana was against vacancy or not or whether it was on merit or not, etc. are the aspects of a fact finding exercise. The court has not delve into that aspect for the reason that even if the
- 17 -
admission of Dr. Bhavana is found to be not merited, it would only result into cancellation of admission and wastage of one seat at the Post Graduate level. The court confines the examination to the role of the institution in the entire admission episode.
5.3 Upon closer examination and the analysis of facts, certain aspects emerge showing the conduct of the petitioner No.1-Institute in dealing with the admission and admission process of petitioner No.2 and the other candidate Dr. Chaitra G.
(a) Dr. Chaitra G was admitted to the course of M.S. (MS- Obstetrics and Gynecology) in the petitioner college and the date of admission, admission order, code of the college, Karnataka Examination Authority number and the time of admission becomes evident from the receipt received by petitioner No.1 college which figures on record.
(b) The claim of the college that said Dr. Chitra G cancelled her admission and petitioner No.2-Dr. Bhavana came to be admitted is marred by factual discrepancies. The pleadings of the petitioner college in the petition and the stand of the said Dr. Chitra G are at variance.
- 18 -
(c) In paragraph 8 of the petition, following was averred, "It is at this stage noticed by the Institution that the name of one candidate Dr. Chaitra G has been wrongly entered in the column by mistake while checking for the eligibility of the said candidate. However, since the candidate Dr. Chaitra G having not wanted MS-OBG seat at the petitioner Institution, having not paid any fees and having not been admitted by the Petitioner institution, the petitioner wanted to delete the name of Dr. Chitra G and enter the name of the petitioner No.2 Dr. Bhavana T."
On the other hand, Dr. Chitra sent an email dated 13.01.2023 stating that she is not interested in continuing the course and requested to cancel her admission and remove her name.
(d) The case of the petitioner college is contrary, as it is stated that Dr. Bhavana was admitted in the mop-up round against the available vacancy on 2nd December 2022. Dr. Chitra G was already admitted and that is what the factual position emerges, there was no vacancy available to permit the college to admit petitioner No.2-Dr. Bhavana.
(e) The factum of Dr. Chaitra's admission, and her admission details including the fee receipt is reflected. The case of the college however is that in the KEA web-portal, the
- 19 -
name of Dr. Chaitra was mistakenly reflected, instead of Dr. Bhavana-petitioner No.2. The case of the college is that Dr. Chaitra was never given admission. The facts stand inconsistent to one another.
(f) For the reasons best known to the institution, it has concealed the crucial document which is the receipt issued by one Udaykumar Rao, the Dean and the Principal of the Institution which is generated from KEA portal. All these aspects are suggestive to forcify the stand of the institution- petitioner No.1 that Dr. Chaitra was never admitted by it. As already stated, the email by Dr. Chaitra contained a request on her behalf to cancel the admission.
(g) It is surprising to notice that the institution issued a receipt signed by the Dean and Principal at 23.52 hours on 2nd December 2022 showing the admission to Dr. Chaitra. Letter dated 2nd December 2022 was received by the office of respondent No.2 on the same day. There is nothing on record to show that the office of respondent No.2 was working beyond 23.52 hours on 2nd December 2022.
(h) Letter dated 8th December 2022 issued to respondent No.2 has the same contents as found in letter dated
- 20 -
2nd December 2022 except, the date itself. These letters were issued from Mangaluru and were delivered by hand on the same day in the office of respondent No.2 at Bengaluru.
(i) The Karnataka Examination Authority provides list to the Institutions of unallotted candidates registered and verified. No such list was provided to petitioner No.1-College by the KEA. Petitioner No.2-Dr. Bhavana was given the admission when she approached the college. The tuition fee was collected from Dr. Bhavana.
(j) As per the KEA, it is not open to the Institution to accept the cancellation of admission and allot the seat to another candidate. By following such procedure, petitioner No.1- Institution gave a go-by to the seniority. Even merit might have been sacrificed in the process by giving admission to petitioner No.2.
(k) The College sent rest of students admitted to PG Course and in email dated 2nd December 2022 to the University of said Dr. Chaitra was shown to be admitted. Said Dr. Chaitra who was allotted the seat in the petitioner No.1-Institute is not a party to the writ petition.
- 21 -
(l) Whether the discontinuation of admission of Dr. Chaitra was bonafide or was part of modus operandi to shift the merit seat to the management seat is to be searched out on the basis of the operative facts. A serious issue was raised by National Medical Commission about shifting admission in favour of ineligible candidates surpassing the meritorious candidates.
(m) While the documents are produced by the Institution, such as Bank statement to show the payment of fee of `10,00,000/- by Dr. Bhavana to support the receipt produced, the said statement and document do not convincingly reflect the payment as claimed.
(n) The respondent university produced along with memo dated 16th June 2023, a letter addressed to its Registrar dated 8th December 2022 which states about the list of the students admitted to MD-MS PG Degree course with the documents in which the name of Dr. Chaitra is mentioned at Sl.No.31 with the category under which she was admitted to the course along with the signature.
5.4 All the aforesaid facts and circumstances taken together in their operative value suggest that the admission given to
- 22 -
Dr. Bhavana amounted to conversion of a merit seat in the P.G. Course to the management quota. The admissions, the way dealt with, conducted and acted upon by the petitioner No.1-Institute was a device of shifting the seat to management quota. It smacks that petitioner No.1-Institute acted unjustly and with high irregularity to enrich itself monetarily and commercial mindedly.
5.5 For the reasons recorded above, in view of the analysis of facts made and the total discussion supplied, the Court concludes that the conduct of petitioner No.1-Institute in dealing with the admissions in question was highly irregular. The petitioner No.1-Institute acted far from bonafide, to say the least. The conduct smacked commercially and of deriving unjust enrichment. If such conduct is countenanced and not treated with stern approach by the Court, it will open the doors for commercial minded colleges and institutions and shall amount to giving licence to further irregularities in any other admission process of such nature and kind. 5.6 In that view, the petitioner No.1-Srinivas Institute of Medical Science and Research Centre is imposed with cost of `5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only). The amount of cost
- 23 -
shall be deposited with the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority within a period of four weeks from today and the receipt thereof shall be produced on the record of the present petition.
6. At the same time, petitioner No.2-student who was admitted to the MBBS course for the academic year 2022-23 has undergone the studies from December 2022 since given the admission to the course. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner No.2 has completed substantial period of studies and she is in the middle of the course, already studying. The court is not inclined to upset petitioner No.2's admission, notwithstanding the above, so as not to disturb her educational career. Furthermore, the student in whose seat, the petitioner No.2 was given admission has not come forward to claim the admission on that seat, nor any fact is established which may go to suggest that the petitioner No.2 has either colluded or has played a role in seeking admission to the course by committing an irregularity on her part. If the admission of petitioner No.2 is not approved, the seat will be rendered vacant and cannot be filled by any other candidate.
- 24 -
6.1 In the facts and circumstances, therefore, the petitioner No.2 shall be permitted to continue her studies to the end, and for that purpose, her admission deserves to be approved. The respondent-University shall treat the admission of petitioner No.2-Dr. Bhavana T. as approved.
7. The petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent and that the cost of ` 5,00,000/- to be paid by the petitioner No.1 as above.
Sd/-
(N.V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
(K V ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU