Karnataka High Court
The Bethel Medical Institute Of Nursing ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 February, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 KAR 590
Author: S.Sujatha
Bench: S.Sujatha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION No.50150/2019 (EDN - REG) c/w
W.P.No.45577/2018 (EDN - AD),
W.P.No.45727/2018 (EDN - AD),
W.P.No.20786/2019 (EDN - RES),
W.P.No.20790/2019 (EDN - RES),
W.P.No.48132/2019 (EDN - AD),
W.P.No.48148/2019 (EDN - RES),
W.P.No.48172/2019 (EDN - AD),
W.P.No.48193/2019 (EDN - AD),
W.P.No.48201/2019 (EDN - AD),
W.P.No.48215/2019 (EDN - AD),
W.P.No.48234/2019 (EDN - AD),
W.P.No.48262/2019 (EDN - AD) AND
W.P.No.48298/2019 (EDN - AD)
IN W.P.No.50150/2019:
BETWEEN:
1. THE BETHEL MEDICAL INSTITUTE OF
NURSING SCIENCES & PHYSIOTHERAPY
AT SY.NO.5/3, BETHEL CAMPUS
PREETHI NAGARA, LAGGERE
BENGALURU-560058
REP BY ITS PRESIDENT
Mr. SUNNY DANIEL
S/O DANIEL, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
2. THE BETHEL MEDICAL MISSION
COLLEGE OF PHYSIOTHERAPY
AT SY.NO.5/3, BETHEL CAMPUS
PREETHI NAGARA, LAGGERE
BENGALURU-560058
REP BY ITS PRESIDENT
-2-
Mr. SUNNY DANIEL
S/O DANIEL, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
3. THE HOSMAT COLLEGE OF NURSING
AT SY.NO.5/2, HOSMAT CAMPUS
PREETHI NAGARA, LAGGARE
BENGALURU-560058
REP BY ITS PRESIDENT
Mr. SUNNY DANIEL
S/O DANIEL, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
4. THE HOSMAT COLLEGE OF PHYSIOTHERAPY
AT SY.NO.5/2, HOSMAT CAMPUS
PREETHI NAGARA, LAGGARE
BENGALURU-560058
REP BY ITS PRESIDENT
Mr. SUNNY DANIEL
S/O DANIEL, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
5. THE HOSMAT COLLEGE OF
ALLIED HEALTH SCIENCE
AT SY.NO.5/2, HOSMAT CAMPUS
PREETHI NAGARA, LAGGARE
BENGALURU-560058
REP BY ITS PRESIDENT
Mr. SUNNY DANIEL
S/O DANIEL, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
6. THE GAYATHRI DEVI COLLEGE OF NURSING
OFFICE AT BETHEL CAMPUS
PREETHI NAGARA, LAGGERE
BENGALURU-560058
INSTITUTION IS AT KOTTIGEPALYA
OFF. TUMAKURU-MYSURU RING ROAD
BENGALURU-560091
REP BY ITS PRESIDENT
Mr. SUNNY DANIEL
S/O DANIEL, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
7. BENAKA CHARITABLE TRUST
AT SY.NO.5/2, HOSMAT CAMPUS
PREETHI NAGARA, LAGGARE
BENGALURU-560058
REP BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE
-3-
Mr. SUNNY DANIEL
S/O DANIEL, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
8. MERLY PARA MEDICAL EDUCATION TRUST
AT SY.NO.5/2, HOSMAT CAMPUS
PREETHI NAGARA, LAGGARE
BENGALURU-560058
REP BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE
Mr. SUNNY DANIEL
S/O DANIEL,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS ... PETITIONERS
[BY SRI A.S.PONNANNA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT.LEELA P. DEVADIGA, ADV.]
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION
M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001
2. THE RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY
OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGARA
BENGALURU-560041
REP BY ITS REGISTRAR
3. THE INDIAN NURSING COUNCIL
8TH FLOOR, NBCC CENTER
PLOT NO.2, COMMUNITY CENTER
OKHLA PHASE-1, NEW DELHI-110020
REP BY ITS SECRETARY ...RESPONDENTS
[BY SMT.PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R-1;
SMT.LAKSHMY IYENGAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI B.S.SACHIN, ADV. FOR R-2;
SRI SHIVARUDRA, ADV. FOR R-3.]
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER/COMMUNICATION PASSED BY THE R-1 DATED
14.10.2019 A COPY OF WHICH IS HEREIN PRODUCED AS
ANNEXURE-R AND ETC.
-4-
IN W.P.No.45577/2018:
BETWEEN:
BETHEL MEDICAL INSTITUTE OF
NURSING SCIENCES,
AN INSTITUTION OF BETHEL
MEDICAL MISSION GROUP
RUN BY BENAKA CHARITABLE TRUST
BETHEL MEDICAL MISSION CAMPUS,
HOSMAT BETHEL ROAD,
PREETHINAGAR
NEAR LAGGERE BRIDGE
BANGALORE - 560058
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL
PROF. SHAMPALATHA
D/O PARASHURAMA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS ... PETITIONER
[BY SRI D.R.RAVISHANKAR, ADV.]
AND:
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF
HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE, REP BY ITS REGISTRAR
2. INDIAN NURSING COUNCIL
8TH FLOOR, NBCC CENTER,
PLOT No.2, COMMUNITY CENTER
OKHLA PHASE - 1,
NEW DELHI - 110020
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS,
(COD), VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE.
-5-
(CAUSE TITLE AMENDED VIDE
COURT ORDER DATED 03.01.2019) ...RESPONDENTS
[BY SMT.LAKSHMY IYENGAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI B.S.SACHIN, ADV. FOR R-1;
SRI SHIVARUDRA, ADV. FOR R-2;
SMT.PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R-3.]
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
COMMUNICATION DATED 16.07.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-K
ISSUED BY THE R-1 AS IN GROSS VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES
OF NATURAL JUSTICE, ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND NOT
SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYE OF LAW AND ETC.
IN W.P.No.45727/2018:
BETWEEN:
HOSMAT HOSPITAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION
THE GROUP INSTITUTIONS
RUN BY MERCY PARA MEDICAL
EDUCATIONAL TRUST,
BETHEL MEDICAL INDO CAMPUS,
BETHEL STREET, PREETHI NAGAR,
LAGGERE, BANGALORE-560 058
REP. BY ITS DEAN
PROF. Dr. C.K.SENTHIL KUMAR,
S/O C.KRISHNAN
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS ... PETITIONER
[BY SRI D.R.RAVISHANKAR, ADV.]
AND:
1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF
HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE, REP BY ITS REGISTRAR
2. INDIAN NURSING COUNCIL
8TH FLOOR, NBCC CENTER,
PLOT No.2, COMMUNITY CENTER
-6-
OKHLA PHASE - 1,
NEW DELHI - 110020
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS,
(COD), VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE.
(CAUSE TITLE AMENDED VIDE
COURT ORDER DATED 03.01.2019) ...RESPONDENTS
[BY SMT.LAKSHMY IYENGAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI B.S.SACHIN, ADV. FOR R-1;
SRI SHIVARUDRA, ADV. FOR R-2;
SMT.PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R-3.]
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
COMMUNICATION DATED 16.07.2018 (VIDE ANNEXURE-J)
COMMUNICATION DATED 21.07.2018 (VIDE ANNEXURE-K),
COMMUNICATION DATED 07.08.2018 (VIDE ANNEXURE-L),
RESPECTIVELY ISSUED BY R-1 AS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND
NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYE OF LAW, AND ISSUED IN
GROSS VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND
ETC.
IN W.P.No.20786/2019:
BETWEEN:
1. MERCY PARA MEDICAL EDUCATIONAL TRUST
SY.NO.5/2, PREETHI NAGAR,
LAGGERE, BENGALURU-560058,
BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE
Dr. SUNNY DANIEL,
S/O DANIEL, AGE 40 YEARS
2. HOSMAT COLLEGE OF NURSING
SY NO.5/2, PREETHI NAGAR,
LAGGERE, BENGALURU-560058,
BY ITS PRINCIPAL
-7-
PROFESSOR SANGEETHA.
3. HOSMAT COLLEGE OF PHYSIOTHERAPY
SY NO.5/2, PREETHI NAGAR,
LAGGERE, BENGALURU-560058,
BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE
Dr. SUNNY DANIEL
4. HOSMAT COLLEGE OF
ALLIED HEALTH SCIENCE
(BACHELLOR OF MEDICAL
IMAGING TECHNOLOGY &
BSC., OPERATION TECHNOLOGY)
SY NO.5/2, PREETHI NAGAR,
LAGGERE, BENGALURU-560058,
BY ITS PRINCIPAL:
PROFESSOR MOHAN KUMAR ... PETITIONERS
[BY SRI A.S.PONNANNA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT.LEELA P. DEVADIGA, ADV.]
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION
M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001
2. THE RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY
OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGARA
BENGALURU-560041
REP BY ITS REGISTRAR
3. INDIAN NURSING COUNCIL
8TH FLOOR, NBCC CENTER
PLOT NO.2, COMMUNITY CENTER
OKHLA PHASE-1, NEW DELHI-110020
BY ITS SECRETARY ...RESPONDENTS
[BY SMT.PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R-1;
SMT.LAKSHMY IYENGAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI B.S.SACHIN, ADV. FOR R-2;
SRI SHIVARUDRA, ADV. FOR R-3.]
-8-
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
RESOLUTION DATED 27.02.2019 PASSED BY THE R-1
UNIVERSITY ON SUBJECT No.22 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-N
AND ETC.
IN W.P.No.20790/2019:
BETWEEN:
1. BENAKA CHARITABLE TRUST
SY.NO.5/3, PREETHI NAGAR,
LAGGERE, BENGALURU - 560058
BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE
Dr. SUNNI DANIEL,
S/O DANIEL, AGE 40 YEARS
2. BETHEL MEDICAL INSTITUTE
OF NURSING SCIENCES
SY.NO.5/3, PREETHI NAGAR,
LAGGERE, BENGALURU - 560058
BY ITS PRINCIPAL
PROFESSOR SHAMPA LATHA
3. BETHEL MEDICAL MISSION
COLLEGE OF PHYSIOTHERAPY
SY.NO.5/3, PREETHI NAGAR,
LAGGERE, BENGALURU - 560058
BY ITS PRINCIPAL Dr. LORDLIN ... PETITIONERS
[BY SRI A.S.PONNANNA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT.LEELA P. DEVADIGA, ADV.]
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION
M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001
2. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY
OF HEALTH SCIENCES
-9-
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGARA
BENGALURU-560041
REP BY ITS REGISTRAR
3. INDIAN NURSING COUNCIL
8TH FLOOR, NBCC CENTER
PLOT NO.2, COMMUNITY CENTER
OKHLA PHASE-1, NEW DELHI-110020
BY ITS SECRETARY ...RESPONDENTS
[BY SMT.PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R-1;
SMT.LAKSHMY IYENGAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR R-2;
SRI SHIVARUDRA, ADV. FOR R-3.]
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
RESOLUTION DATED 27.02.2019 PASSED BY THE R-1
UNIVERSITY ON SUBJECT No.22 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-N BY
ISSUING A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI.
IN W.P.No.48132/2019:
BETWEEN:
1. ABHISHEK V.,
S/O VIJAYAN S.,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
2. KARTHIKEYAN S.,
S/O SAKTHIVEL T.,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
3. THOMAS K.,
S/O KODANDA PARI G.,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
4. PUGALARASU D.,
S/O V.DHANDAYUTHABANI
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
5. SAKARIYA B.,
S/O A.BABU
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
- 10 -
6. PRAKASHRAJ K.,
S/O P.KALAICHELVAN
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
7. DINESH BABU
S/O INNOCENT R.,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
8. LOKESH S.,
S/O SARAVANAN
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
9. LOKESHWARAN R.S.,
S/O R.SANKAR
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
10 . GOPI R.,
S/O K.RAVI, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
11 . D.SANTHOSH
S/O KUMAR T.,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
BMIT LATERAL ENTRY
12 . D.EBENEZER SAMUEL
S/O DEVAN
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
SEX: MALE
13 . ABHILASH K.N.,
S/O NANJE GOWDA K.P.,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
14 . SHIVANAPPA
S/O DYAVANNA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
15 . GIRISH S.,
S/O SHIVANNA
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
- 11 -
16 . KIRAN P.,
S/O PRASANNA P.,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
17 . JEBHIN J.B.,
S/O K.BHASI
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
PETITIONERS 1 TO 11 ARE
STUDENTS OF I YEAR B.M.I.T.
12 TO 17 ARE LATERAL ENTRY IN
THE HOSMAT COLLEGE OF
BMIT/BETHEL MEDICAL
INDO NEPAL ACADEMY,
BANGALORE-58. ... PETITIONERS
[BY SRI N.AMARESH, ADV.]
AND:
1. THE REGISTRAR
THE RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY
OF HEALTH SCIENCE,
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560041.
2. HOSMAT COLLEGE OF BMIT/
BETHEL MEDICAL INDO NEPAL ACADEMY
HOSMAT-BETHEL ROAD
NEAR LAGGARE BRIDGE
BANGALORE-560058
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL. ...RESPONDENTS
[BY SMT.LAKSHMY IYENGAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI B.S.SACHIN, ADV. FOR R-1; R-2 IS SERVED.]
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT
THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY TO APPROVE THE ADMISSION
OF THE PETITIONER 1 - 17 AND ETC.
- 12 -
IN W.P.No.48148/2019:
BETWEEN:
1. ANNA FLORENCE
D/O K.RAVI KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
2. ASHWINI P.,
D/O PICHAMUTHU P.,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
3. BERLIN SHEEBA K.R.,
D/O T.KUMAR DHAS,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
4. ELIZA NINGOMBAM
D/O N.SHARATCHANDRA,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
5. EVANGELIN PRAISEY J.L.,
D/O S.JOHN LIVINGSTON,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
6. JAYA VINCELIN
S/O N.JAYA SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
7. JEBIN R.,
S/O RASALAIAN K.,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
8. K.M.POOJA PANDEY
D/O BHANU PRATAP PANDEY,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
9. MANOJ M.,
S/O MANI K.,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
10 . MOHAMMED SHAHNAD
S/O MOHAMMED ISHAK,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
- 13 -
11 . MOUSIKA K.,
D/O KUMAR T.,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
12 . OMKAR HUNDARAGI
S/O PRAKASH,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
13 . PONNARASU
S/O MARLIN,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
14 . POONAM PRASAD
S/O GULAB CHAND PRASAD,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
15 . PRAISCY R.D.,
D/O T.RAJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
16 . PRAVEEN JAYAKUMAR R.,
S/O RAJ, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
17 . RUBINA SETI MAHAR
D/O RAN BAHADUR B.K.,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
18 . SHARON CHAUDHARY
D/O Pr. CHETNATH CHAUDHARY,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
19 . SOHAN SANJAY SANGAMANAVAR
S/O MANGAL SINGH CHAUDHARY,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
20 . MEHZIL SHABIR
D/O SHABIR AHAMAD PEER,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
21 . ANANT KUMAR
S/O SINGHESWARSHA,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
- 14 -
22 . VINITHA CHANDNI
D/O SUBODHA KUMAR SHA,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
23 . YAMIMA CHAUDHARY
D/O MANGAL SINGH CHAUDHARY,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
PETITIONERS 1 TO 23 ARE
STUDENTS OF I YEAR B.SC., (NURSING),
IN THE HOSMAT COLLEGE OF NURSING
BETHEL MEDICAL INDO NEPAL ACADEMY,
BANGALORE-560 058. ... PETITIONERS
[BY SRI N.AMARESH, ADV.]
AND:
1. THE REGISTRAR
THE RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY
OF HEALTH SCIENCE,
4TH "T" BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 041.
2. HOSMAT COLLEGE OF NURSING
BETHEL MEDICAL INDO NEPAL ACADEMY
HOSMAT-BETHEL ROAD,
NEAR LAGGARE BRIDGE,
BANGALORE-560 058
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL. ...RESPONDENTS
[BY SMT.LAKSHMY IYENGAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI B.S.SACHIN, ADV. FOR R-1; R-2 IS SERVED.]
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT
THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY TO APPROVE THE ADMISSION
OF THE PETITIONER 1 TO 23 AND ETC.
- 15 -
IN W.P.No.48172/2019:
BETWEEN:
1. AASHA M.,
D/O MUTHUSAMY M.,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
2. ABIRAMI I.,
D/O IYYANAR N.,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
3. AGALYA B.,
D/O BALAMURUGAN R.,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
4. AJAY R.,
S/O RAJENDRAN N.,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
5. ANBAZHAGAN K.,
D/O M.KRISHNAN,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
6. E.POONGODY
D/O J.ELUMALAI,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
7. JANCI R.,
D/O G.RAVI,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
8. KAYALVIZHI K.,
D/O KATHIRAVAN S.,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
9. M.R.SAJINA JENIFER
D/O P.MOHAN BABU,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
10 . MANIKANDAN L.,
S/O LAKSHMANAN,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
- 16 -
11 . MERLIN FELCIYA J.,
D/O A.JESURAJ,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
12 . MONISHA K.,
D/O M.KALIYAPERUMAL,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
13 . PADMAVATHI P.,
D/O PALANI PILLAI,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
14 . R.KOWSALYA
D/O RAVISHANKAR M.,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
15 . SAKTHIVEL M.,
S/O MURUGAN C.,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
16 . SARANYA S.,
D/O S.SAGAYANATHAN,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
17 . SARITHA M.,
D/O R.MAHADEVAN,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
18 . SRI PRIYADHARSHINI S.,
D/O K.SRIDHAR,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
19 . VELLAYAMMAL T.,
D/O THANGARASU C.,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
20 . VIDHYASRI S.,
D/O A.SAMIDURAI,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
21 . VIJAYALAKSHMI V.,
D/O VADIVELU,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
- 17 -
PETITIONERS 1 TO 21 ARE
STUDENTS OF 1 YEAR B.SC.,
(NURSING) IN GAYATHRI DEVI
COLLEGE OF NURSING,
BANGALORE-58 ... PETITIONERS
[BY SRI N.AMARESH, ADV.]
AND:
1. THE REGISTRAR
THE RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY
OF HEALTH SCIENCE,
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560041
2. GAYATHRI DEVI COLLEGE OF NURSING
HOSMAT BETHEL ROAD,
NEAR LAGGARE BRIDGE,
BANGALORE-560058
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL ...RESPONDENTS
[BY SMT.LAKSHMY IYENGAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI B.S.SACHIN, ADV. FOR R-1; R-2 IS SERVED.]
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT
THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY TO APPROVE THE ADMISSION
OF THE PETITIONER 1 TO 21 AND ETC.
IN W.P.No.48193/2019:
BETWEEN:
1. ARUN KUMAR P.,
S/O PREMNATH L.,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
2. PRIYA A.,
D/O ANNADURAI
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
- 18 -
3. ASHICK KETHIYON J.,
S/O JOHN BESTER RAJ
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
4. MAHANATHI SHOBANA A.,
D/O P.ARJUNAN
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
5. GOKUL RAJ M.,
S/O M.MUNIYAPPAN
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
6. SUNIL KUMAR R.,
S/O A.RAJBABU
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
7. JOY X. JONAH
S/O JOSEPH XAVIER J.,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
8. FAHMEEDA AKHTAR
D/O G.H.HUSSAIN YATTO
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
PETITIONERS ARE STUDENTS OF
I YEAR B.SC., OTT IN THE
HOSMAT COLLEGE OF OTT
BETHEL MEDICAL INDO NEPAL ACADEMY
BANGALORE - 58 ... PETITIONERS
[BY SRI N.AMARESH, ADV.]
AND:
1. THE REGISTRAR
THE RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY
OF HEALTH SCIENCE
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE - 560041
2. HOSMAT COLLEGE OF NURSING SCIENCES
BETHEL MEDICAL INDO NEPAL ACADEMY
NEAR LAGGARE BRIDGE
BANGALORE - 560058
- 19 -
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL ...RESPONDENTS
[BY SMT.LAKSHMY IYENGAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI B.S.SACHIN, ADV. FOR R-1; R-2 IS SERVED.]
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT
THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY TO APPROVE THE ADMISSION
OF THE PETITIONER 1 TO 8 AND ETC.
IN W.P.No.48201/2019:
BETWEEN:
1. CRUSIYA
D/O RAVIKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
2. ELIZABETH THOMAS
D/O THOMAS V.M.,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
3. G.J.SUSEELA
D/O G.JACOB,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
4. JANET JASMINE J.,
D/O JEYANANDHAN M.,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
5. LEENA NAZARETH
D/O ANTONA FHARASI NAZARETH,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
6. SAJITH S.,
S/O SIVASANKARAPILLAI K.,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
7. TINTU T.,
D/O THANKACHAN
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
- 20 -
8. YALLESHKUMAR HUKKERI
S/O REVAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
9. SURYA PRABHA
D/O UDAYABHANU P.G.,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
10 . KEZIAH P.,
D/O A.P.ASHOKAN
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
11 . NANDHINI S.,
D/O SELVAM A.,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
12 . NASRIN BANU
D/O ABDUL MAJEETH,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
13 . PANTHAM MADHULATHA
D/O SEETHSRAMULU
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
14 . BISMA PARVAIZ
D/O PARVAIZ AHMAD PINCHOO,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
PETITIONERS 1 TO 14 ARE
STUDENTS OF I YEAR MSC (NURSING)
IN THE HOSMAT COLLEGE
OF NURSING/BETHEL MEDICAL
INDO NEPAL ACADEMY
BANGALORE - 560 058. ... PETITIONERS
[BY SRI N.AMARESH, ADV.]
AND:
1. THE REGISTRAR
THE RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY
OF HEALTH SCIENCE
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 041.
- 21 -
2. HOSMAT COLLEGE OF NUSRING
BETHEL MEDICAL INDO NEPAL ACADEMY
NEAR LAGGARE BRIDGE
BANGALORE - 560 058
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL. ...RESPONDENTS
[BY SMT.LAKSHMY IYENGAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI B.S.SACHIN, ADV. FOR R-1; R-2 IS SERVED.]
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT
THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY TO APPROVE THE ADMISSION
OF THE PETITIONER 1 TO 14 AND ETC.
IN W.P.No.48215/2019:
BETWEEN:
1. SUNITHA S.,
D/O SASIDHARAN S.,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
2. BENJUNGMONGLA
D/O NOKLEN JAMIR
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
3. KALUNG AMI
D/O KALUNG GRAYU
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
4. JOSIT JOSE
S/O JOSE CHELLANGOTT
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
5. VYSHKH M.V.,
S/O VIJAYAN
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
6. BIHANI SHRESTHA
D/O BADRI SHRESTHA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
- 22 -
7. PRATIBHA YOGESHWAR
D/O MANAK NATH YOGESHWAR
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
8. MOTIRAM BHATTA
S/O GANESH PRASAD BHATTA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
9. M.MADHAN RAJ
S/O R.MURUGESAN
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
10 . ADHAV MITALI KISHOR
D/O PARTIBHA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
11 . SUBRAT KUMAR BHOLA
D/O RAMESH CHANDRA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
12 . ASHUTOSH PRADHAN
D/O BALARAM PRADHAN
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
13 . UPPATURI HARINATH
D/O U.PITCHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
14 . KAJOL VAISHNAV
D/O NARENDRA VAISHNAV
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
15 . RUKSHAR BEGUM
D/O MD. SARTULLA SHAH
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
SEX: FEMALE
16 . AMAN SACHDEVA
S/O ASHOK SACHDEVA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
- 23 -
17 . YOHIMKI LYNGDHO
S/O ALLAN SHULLAI
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
18 . LAVANYA R.S.,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
19 . RAKESH KUMAR YADAV
S/O SHREE NAGENDRA PARSAD YADAV
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
PETITIONERS 1 TO 19 ARE
ARE STUDENTS OF I YEARS
MASTER DEGREE IN PHYSIO THERAPY
IN THE HOSMAT COLLEGE OF
PHYSIOTHERAPY/BETHEL
MEDICAL INDO NEPAL ACADEMY
BANGALORE-560058. ... PETITIONERS
[BY SRI N.AMARESH, ADV.]
AND:
1. THE REGISTRAR
THE RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY
OF HEALTH SCIENCE
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 041.
2. HOSMAT COLLEGE OF PHYSIOTHERAPY/
BETHEL MEDICAL INDO NEPAL ACADEMY
NEAR LAGGARE BRIDGE
BANGALORE - 560 058
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL. ...RESPONDENTS
[BY SMT.LAKSHMY IYENGAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI B.S.SACHIN, ADV. FOR R-1; R-2 IS SERVED.]
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT
THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY TO APPROVE THE ADMISSION
OF THE PETITIONER 1 TO 19 AND ETC.
- 24 -
IN W.P.No.48234/2019:
BETWEEN:
1. SHAMINA SANGEETHA G.,
D/O GUNASEKARAN S.,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
2. MUNEERA MAHIM P.,
D/O MAHIM P.,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
3. LIPOKWATI JAMIR
S/O TEKALEMBA JAMIR,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
4. PARVAIZ AHMAD DAR
S/O G.H.MOHAMMAD DAR,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
5. ANGEL BLESSY R.,
D/O RUBAN B.,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, SEX FEMALE,
6. KARWANDE ANUSHKA A.,
D/O AVINASH,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
7. CHANDRU R.,
S/O RAVI, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
8. SRITHAR RAJ A.,
S/O AYIL RAJ A.,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
9. ASIF V.A.,
S/O ABOOBAKAR V.A.,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
10 . S.PAVITHRA
D/O T.SANKAR,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
- 25 -
11 . AL AMEEN S.,
S/O B.SHAHUL HAMEED,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
12 . SNEKA K.,
D/O G.KANNAN,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
13 . PRIYANGA P.,
D/O V.PANDIYAN,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
14 . KEERTHIGA M.,
D/O MAHENDIRAN D.,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
15 . RABIYA BANU
D/O NAYAZ AHMED,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
16 . PRAISON R.,
S/O RAMESH J.,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
17 . SHARUMATHI B.,
D/O M.BALRAJ,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
18 . JOHNY PHILIP J.,
S/O JAYASINGH ROBERT,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
19 . SHALINI R.,
D/O RAVIKUMAR M.,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
20 . DEBASHISH DAS
S/O MRINAL DAS,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
21 . PREMKUMAR E.,
S/O ELUMALAI,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
- 26 -
22 . ARYA
D/O AJITH S., AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
23 . JESLIN JOY M.,
S/O D.MOHAN RAJ,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
24 . AVI KUMAR
S/O AJITH KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
25 . KHARAT ANGEL ROBIN
S/O ROBIN KHARAT,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
26 . TRILOCHANA E.,
D/O ESWAR RAOE,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
27 . SUMITHA C.H.,
D/O MADAN C.H.,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
28 . SAUGAT NEUPANE
D/O KRISHNA PRASAD NEUPANE,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
PETITIONERS 1 TO 28 ARE
STUDENTS OF 1 YEAR PHYSIO THERAPY
IN THE HOSMAT HOSPITAL
EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE/
BETHEL MEDICAL INFO NEPAL ACADEMY,
BANGALORE-560088 ... PETITIONERS
[BY SRI N.AMARESH, ADV.]
AND:
1. THE REGISTRAR
THE RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY
OF HEALTH SCIENCE
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 041.
- 27 -
2. HOSMAT HOSPITAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE/
BETHEL MEDICAL INDO NEPAL ACADEMY
HOSMAT-BETHEL ROAD,
NEAR LAGGARE BRIDGE
BANGALORE - 560 058
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL. ...RESPONDENTS
[BY SMT.LAKSHMY IYENGAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI B.S.SACHIN, ADV. FOR R-1; R-2 IS SERVED.]
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT
THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY TO APPROVE THE ADMISSION
OF THE PETITIONER 1 TO 28 AND ETC.
IN W.P.No.48262/2019:
BETWEEN:
1. ANNAMMA VINCENT
D/O VINCENT JOHN
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
2. PATIL DEENA BENEDICKT
D/O BENEDICKT PATIL
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
3. PREMA MIRANDA
D/O REMEND MIRANDA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
4. MARIA DIYOG D. SOUZA
D/O DIYOG P. D SOUZA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
5. RUBY VINOD JOHN
D/O VINOD JOHN
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
6. CHRISTIAN NIMI SAMUYEL
D/O SAMUYEL
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
- 28 -
7. BHUKYA NAGAMANI
D/O BHUKYA BALOJI
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
8. SANDEEP T.S.,
S/O THILAKAN
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
9. SEENA THOMAS
D/O THOMAS T.S.,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
10 . LIGY JOHN
D/O G.JOHN
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
11 . BIJI T. VARGHESE
D/O THOMAS VARGHESE
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
12 . SONA RAJAN
D/O RAJAN K.R.,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
13 . ANITHA PAPPACHAN
D/O PAPPACHAN E.,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
14 . JOISY JOSEPH
D/O JOSEPH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
15 . BINI A.V.,
D/O VARKRY A.K.,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
16 . DARLY VARGHESE V.,
D/O V.P.VARGHESE
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
17 . JOLLY JOSEPH
D/O JOSEPH M.V.,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
- 29 -
18 . BIJU VARKEY
D/O VARKRY A.K.,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
19 . JESSY P.J.,
D/O JAMES P.V.,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
20 . MILU ABRAHAM
D/O ABRAHAM
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
21 . PREEMA P.M. ABRAHAM
D/O ABRAHAM
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
22 . SHRISHAIL BAGODI
S/O LAXMAN BAGODI
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
23 . MESHIN JEYA BLESSY V.,
D/O VISWANATHAN R.,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
24 . JOSNA MATHEW
D/O MATHEW
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
25 . UMBREEN ZEHRA
D/O MOHD YAQOOB RATHER
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
26 . SUSMITA MAHAJAN
D/O RATHAN MAHAJAN
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
27 . SUMIT K.R. SHOME
S/O NETAI SHONE
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
28 . GOPA RANI SAHA
D/O GOPAL CH. SAHA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
- 30 -
29 . SANGITA BHOWMIK
D/O MONORANGAN BHOWMIK
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
30 . POUSHALI BARDHAN
D/O DEBABRATA BARDHAN
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
31 . NANDITA DAS
D/O RAKHAL DAS
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
32 . JASUDA SARKAR
D/O RATHAN MAHAJAN
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
33 . MANDIRA BARMAN
D/O MADHUSUDHAN BARMAN
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
34 . REMYA R.,
D/O VIJAYAN
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
SEX: FEMALE
35 . BLESSY BENNY
D/O BENNY
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
36 . JENISH MICHAEL
D/O P.J.MICHAEL
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
PETITIONERS 1 TO 36 ARE
STUDENTS OF I YEAR PB.BSC. NURSING
IN THE HOSMAT COLLEGE OF
NURSING/BETHEL MEDICAL
INDO NEPAL ACADEMY,
BANGALORE-560058. ... PETITIONERS
[BY SRI N.AMARESH, ADV.]
- 31 -
AND:
1. THE REGISTRAR
THE RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY
OF HEALTH SCIENCE
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-560041
2. BETHEL MEDICAL INSTITUTE OF NURSING/
BETHEL MEDICAL INDO NEPAL ACADEMY
PREETHI NAGAR,
NEAR LAGGERE BRIDGE,
BENGALURU-58.
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL ...RESPONDENTS
[BY SMT.LAKSHMY IYENGAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI B.S.SACHIN, ADV. FOR R-1; R-2 IS SERVED.]
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT
THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY TO APPROVE THE ADMISSION
OF THE PETITIONER 1 TO 36 AND ETC.
IN W.P.No.48298/2019:
BETWEEN:
1. ALEENA DAVIS
D/O DAVIS P.V.,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
2. ANSU ANNA JOSE
D/O JOSE KUTTY JOHN
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
3. BINCY DAVIS
D/O DAVIS P.V.,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
4. BREATHY IMMANUEL I.,
D/O IMMANUEL D.,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
- 32 -
5. CHARISHMA GRACELET K.V.,
D/O VARGHESE K.,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
6. DHIVYA BHARATHI D.,
D/O P.DHARUMALINGAM
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
7. HEMALATHA S.,
D/O SARKARAI S.,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
8. JASNA JOSEPH
D/O JOSEPH P.,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
9. KALAIARASI R.,
D/O RAJA K.,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
10 . KAVANA A.M.,
D/O MURTHY A.V.,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
11 . KAVITHA R.,
D/O G.RAGHU
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
12 . KAVIYA S.,
D/O SASIDHARAN B.,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
13 . K.S.ANGEL BEAULA
D/O KAMALADHAS
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
14 . LINSA JOHNSON
D/O JOHNSON K.Y.,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
15 . M.KEERTHANA RUBINI
D/O R.MURUGESAN
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
- 33 -
16 . MERIN BEULA A.S.,
D/O ARUMUGAM P.,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
17 . R.STEPHY GLORY
D/O RADHAKRISHNAN P.C.,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
18 . REGENA MARY B.,
D/O BALASUBRAMANIYAN
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
19 . SNEHA JOSE
D/O JOSE K.C.,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
20 . SNEHA J.,
D/O JAGAN K.,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
21 . PRADEEPA K.,
D/O K.KRISHNAMOORTHI
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
22 . SARANYA DAS S.,
S/O HARIDAS
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
PETITIONERS 1 TO 22 ARE
STUDENTS OF I YEAR B.SC (NURSING)
IN THE BETHEL MEDICAL
INSTITUTE OF NURSING SCIENCES
BANGALORE - 58 ... PETITIONERS
[BY SRI N.AMARESH, ADV.]
AND:
1. THE REGISTRAR
THE RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY
OF HEALTH SCIENCE
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-560041
- 34 -
2. BETHEL MEDICAL INSTITUTE OF NURSING
PREETHI NAGAR,
NEAR LAGGERE BRIDGE,
BENGALURU-58.
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL ...RESPONDENTS
[BY SMT.LAKSHMY IYENGAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI B.S.SACHIN, ADV. FOR R-1; R-2 IS SERVED.]
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT
THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY TO APPROVE THE ADMISSION
OF THE PETITIONER 1 TO 22 AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED, ARE COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
These petitions involving similar and akin issues, have been heard together and are disposed of by this common order.
2. The petitioner - Institutions are running Nursing, Physiotherapy and Allied Health Science courses, being affiliated to the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Scinces and Nursing Courses. It is submitted that on 07.03.2018, a team consisting of 8 persons, claiming to be from the Rajiv Gandhi University along with hardware and software engineers conducted a
- 35 -
surprise inspection of the petitioner - Institutions and seized several documents as well as hard disks from the computer systems on the ground that there could be certain irregularities, without issuing any acknowledgement. The said inspection team had submitted its report to the University. The University in turn constituted a committee to look into the allegations found in the report. The said committee submitted a report to the University and the same was placed before the Syndicate for its consideration. The Syndicate of the University took up the issue as Subject No.10 in its 134th meeting held on 13.06.2018 and accepted the recommendations of the committee and decided that till police inspections are over, affiliation should not be extended to the Institutions and disaffiliation process may be initiated against the Institutions' affiliations. Against the said decision, writ petition Nos.45577/2018 and 45727/2018 are filed.
- 36 -
3. During the pendency of the said writ petitions, it appears that the University in order to follow the prescribed procedure for disaffiliation took up the issue in its 139th meeting held on 11.01.2019 and decided to initiate the process of disaffiliation against the Institutions affiliated to Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences run by the Bethel Group and to issue the show cause notice. The Syndicate has approved the motion moved for disaffiliation and has also decided to issue the public notice in the newspaper stating that approval for the above said Institutions for the academic year 2019-20 has not been granted by the University. Show cause notice dated 02.02.2019 was issued to the petitioners to which reply has been submitted and the same has been placed before the Syndicate in its meeting held on 27.02.2019 and the Syndicate took a decision to further process for disaffiliation as per provisions of the Statutes. Aggrieved by the decision of the 140th Syndicate meeting dated 27.02.2019,
- 37 -
W.P.Nos.20786-789/2019 and W.P.Nos.20790- 792/2019 are filed.
4. The second respondent - university vide communication dated 08.06.2019, prevented the existing students who had got admission for the year 2018-19 to appear in the examinations. Aggrieved by the same, some of the students have filed writ petitions before this Court in W.P.Nos.48298-318/2019 and sought appropriate direction to the University to permit the students who were already admitted prior to the decision taken by the University to write their examination and also approve their admissions. This Court has granted an ad-interim order permitting the students to write their examinations. In the meanwhile, the meeting of the Senate was held and a decision has been taken to withdraw affiliation granted to the petitioners and thereafter, the Syndicate has again taken up the issue in its 142nd meeting held on
- 38 -
29.06.2019 and recommended for withdrawal of affiliation granted to the courses run by the seven colleges which are under the Bethel and Hosmat Group of Institutions. On communication of this decision and resolution of the University to the Government, the same has been approved as per the communication dated 14.10.2019. Based on the said approval, the second respondent - University has issued notification dated 18.10.2019, withdrawing the affiliations granted to the petitioners, W.P.No.50150/2019 is filed challenging the decision of the Syndicate dated 29.06.2019 in 142nd meeting and the notifications dated 14.10.2019 and 18.10.2019.
Submissions on behalf of the petitioners:
5. Learned senior counsel Sri.A.S.Ponnanna representing the petitioners submitted that the action of the respondents in passing the impugned resolutions are all bereft of the statutory requirements mandated
- 39 -
under Section 48 of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1994 ['Act' for short]. It was submitted that in terms of Section 48, when an affiliation is sought to be withdrawn, it can be only when the college has failed to comply with any of the requirements of provisions of Sub-section [2] of Section 45 or the college has failed to observe any of its conditions of affiliation or the college has conducted itself in a manner which is prejudicial to the interest of education. Neither the University nor the State Government has come to any such categorical conclusion so as to withdraw the affiliation granted. It was argued that the power to withdraw affiliation under Section 48[2] vests only with the Syndicate and through a motion for withdrawal initiated by the Syndicate, an action for disaffiliation can take place. The member who intends to move such a motion must give notice in writing. In the absence of such compliance, the withdrawal of affiliation is not sustainable.
- 40 -
6. It was submitted that Section 48[3] of the Act postulates that the Syndicate before taking such a motion into consideration, shall send a copy of notice of motion and written statement under Section 48[2] to the principal of the college, with an intimation that any representation on behalf of the college will be considered by the Syndicate. However, no such requirement in law has been complied with. In terms of Section 48[4], syndicate after considering the notice of motion, representation of the college, and after such inspection and enquiry and after consulting the academic council, shall make report to the Senate. No such consultation with the academic council is made or report is made to the Senate. Further, Sub-sections 5, 6, 7 of Section 48 of the Act have not been adhered to. Reference has been made to the following decisions:
1. National Council for Teacher Education and Another V/s. Vaishnav Institute of Technology and Management [(2012) 5 SCC 139;
- 41 -
2. Pragathi College of Education V/s. The State of Karnataka and Others;
Submissions on behalf of the respondent-University:
7. Learned senior counsel Smt.Lakshmy Iyengar, representing the University submitted that notice of motion dated 11.01.2019 under Section 48[2] was initiated by a syndicate member and the show cause notice dated 04.02.2019 issued clearly indicates the details of motion and the reasons for initiating the said motion which is in compliance of Section 48[3] of the Act. Reply dated 12.02.2019 was filed by four colleges. Syndicate has taken a decision after affording to the colleges to respond to the show cause notices.
Matter was placed before the academic council and on recommendation for withdrawal of the said colleges, the matter was placed before the Senate in its meeting held on 27.05.2019 and it was resolved that the affiliation be withdrawn relating to the seven colleges of the petitioners. The Registrar has made the proposal by
- 42 -
enunciating the meetings of the Syndicate, Academic Council, the Senate and addressed the same to the Government. The Government after considering the proposal made by the Registrar approved the same on 14.10.2019 which is in conformity with Section 48[7] of the Act. Thus, it was submitted that the provisions of Section 48 are duly complied with.
8. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the affiliation relating to these colleges had expired on 30.08.2018 hence withdrawing the affiliation does not arise. The renewal applications submitted by the petitioners are still pending. In the circumstances, the procedure adopted by the University in passing a resolution to withdraw the affiliation of the petitioners institution are futile and pales insignificance in the circumstances of the case. Reliance is placed on the following judgments:
1. Nulon India Ltd., V/s. Commissioner of Central Excise, [LAWS [CE] 2001 9 552]
- 43 -
2. Bhagwan Swaroop and Others V/s. Mool Chand and Others [LAWS [SC] 1983 2 3]
3. Maharashtra State Board of Secondary And Higher Secondary Education V/s.
K.S.Gandhi and Others [(1991) 2 SCC 716]
4. United Bank of India V/s. Naresh Kumar [LAWS(SC)-1996-9-173]
5. Prabhudas Damodar Kotecha and Others V/s. Manhabala Jeram Damodar and Others [LAWS(SC) 2013 8 12]
6. Gurudevdatta VKSSS Maryadit and Others V/s. State of Maharashtra and Others [(2001) 4 SCC 534]
9. Adverting to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, the points that arise for consideration of this Court are:
1. Whether the notification dated 18.10.2019 issued by the university withdrawing the affiliation to the petitioners - Institutions is valid?
2. Whether the approval of the State Government vide communication dated 14.10.2019 [Annexure-R in W.P.No.50150/2019] is sustainable?
- 44 -
10. Chapter-VII of the Act deals with affiliation of colleges and recognition of institutions. Section 45(1) and (2) of the Act reads thus:
"45. Affiliation of colleges .- (1) Colleges within the University Area may, on satisfying the conditions specified in this section, be affiliated to the University as affiliated colleges by the University on the recommendations made by the State Government.
(2) A college applying for affiliation to the University shall send an application to the Registrar within the time limit fixed by Ordinances and shall satisfy the Syndicate and the Academic Council,-
(a) xxxxx
(b) xxxxx
(c) xxxxx
(d) xxxxx
(e) xxxxx
(f) xxxxx
(g) xxxxx
(h) xxxxx
(i) xxxxx "
11. Section 47 of the Act provides for inspection of colleges and report. In terms of the said provision, every affiliated college shall furnish to the Registrar such reports, returns and other information, as the
- 45 -
Syndicate after consulting the Academic Council may require to enable it to judge the efficiency of the college or institution. The Syndicate shall cause every such college to be inspected from time to time by one or more competent persons authorised by it in this behalf. As per Sub-section [3] of Section 47, the Syndicate may call upon any college so inspected to take, within a specified period, such action as may appear to it to be necessary in respect of any of the matters referred to in sub- section (2) of section 45.
12. Section 48 contemplates for withdrawal of affiliation. It is beneficial to quote the said provision which reads as under:
"48. Withdrawal of affiliation .- (1) The rights conferred on a college by affiliation may be withdrawn in whole or in part or modified if the college has failed to comply with any of the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 45 or the college has failed to observe any of the conditions of its affiliation or the college is conducted in a manner which is prejudicial to the interest of education.
- 46 -
(2) A motion for the withdrawal or the modifications of such rights shall be initiated only in the Syndicate. The member of the Syndicate who intends to move such a motion shall give notice of it and shall state in writing the grounds on which it is made.
(3) Before taking the said motion into consideration the Syndicate shall send a copy of the notice and written statement mentioned in sub-section (2) to the Principal of the college concerned together with an intimation that any representation in writing submitted within a period specified in such intimation on behalf of the college will be considered by the Syndicate.
Provided that the period so specified may, if necessary be extended by the Syndicate.
(4) On receipt of the representation or on the expiry of the period referred to in sub- section (3), the Syndicate after considering the notice of motion, statement and representation and after such inspection by any competent person or persons authorised by it in this behalf and such further inquiry as may appear to it to be necessary and after consulting the Academic Council shall make a report to the Senate.
(5) On receipt of the report under sub- section (4) the Senate shall, after such further inquiry, if any, as may appear to it to be necessary record its opinion in the matter:
- 47 -
Provided that no resolution of Senate recommending the withdrawal of affiliation shall be deemed to have been passed by it unless the resolution has obtained the support of two-thirds of the members present at a meeting of the Senate, such majority comprising not less that one-half the members of the Senate.
(6) The Registrar shall submit the proposal and all proceedings, if any, of the Academic Council, the Syndicate and the Senate relating thereto to the Government which after such inquiry, if any, as may appear to it to be necessary, shall make, their recommendations to the University which shall thereafter make such order, as it deems fit.
(7) Where by an order made under sub-
section (6), the rights conferred by affiliation are withdrawn in whole or in part or modified, the grounds for such withdrawal or modification shall be stated in the order."
13. The prime contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that no mandatory requirements stipulated in these provisions are complied with, in withdrawing the affiliation by the University.
- 48 -
14. 'Affiliated college' is defined under Section 2[a] of the Act as under:
"2. Definitions.- In this Act, and the context otherwise requires,-
(a) "affiliated college" means a college or institution situated within the University Area and affiliated to the University in accordance with the Statutes prescribed and includes all colleges and institutions deemed to be affiliated to the University under this Act;"
15. From the Scheme of the Act, it is clear that affiliation of colleges within the University area is made on the recommendations made by the State Government subject to the procedure prescribed in Sub-section [2] to [10] of Section 45 of the Act. On application submitted by the college for affiliation to the University within the time limit fixed by the ordinances and satisfying the provisions of Sub-section 2[a] to 2[i] of Section 45, the Syndicate shall direct a local enquiry by a person or a committee which shall furnish a report. On the report of such Local Inquiry Committee [LIC], the syndicate has
- 49 -
to record its opinion after consulting the Academic Council on the question whether the application should be granted or refused, either in whole or in part, after making such further enquiry as may appear to it to be necessary. In terms of Section 47, the Syndicate is at liberty to cause every such college to be inspected from time to time by the committee constituted for the said purpose.
16. In the case of Pragathi College of Education supra, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while considering the validity of the condition imposed by the Bangalore University directing the colleges to seek fresh affiliation, while renewing the affiliation for the academic year 2012-13, in the context of the University appointing a Task Force Committee to undertake surprise inspections in respect of the institutions imparting education in B.Ed Course, observed that the inspection report submitted under
- 50 -
Section 67 of the Bangalore Universities Act which is in paramateria with Section 47 of the Act cannot be made use for considering the application for grant or renewal of affiliation. It is observed that the manner of doing a particular act if it is prescribed under any statute, the act must be done in that manner. It is held that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all, referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apsex Court in the case of Ram Chandra Keshav Adke (DEAD) BY L.Rs. VS. Govinda Joti Chavare And Others - [AIR 1975 SC 915] and Babu Verghese And Others VS. Bar Council Of Kerala And Others [(1999) 3 SCC 422].
17. Annexure-H dated 16.01.2019 indicates the decision of the proceedings of the 139th Syndicate held on 11.01.2019. As could be depicted, subject No.3 relates to the deliberation on motion moved by the Vice Chancellor for disaffiliation of institutions coming under
- 51 -
Bethel group of Institutions. After deliberations, motion moved for disaffiliation of the seven institutions belonging to Bethel Group was approved. Further it was decided that public notice be issued in the news papers stating that approval for the above said institution for the academic year 2019-20 has not been granted by the University. In the 142nd Syndicate meeting held on 29.06.2019, the decision of the Syndicate in its 140th Meeting held on 27.02.2019 based on the representation submitted by the Bethel and Hosmat group of institution in response to the show cause notice issued by the University has been considered and after deliberations, the recommendations made for withdrawal of affiliation granted by the University which are under the Bethel and Hosmat group of institutions are accepted pursuant to which the notification dated 18.10.2019 has been issued by the University in view of the approval of the decision of the Syndicate for
- 52 -
withdrawal of affiliation as per the 142nd Syndicate Meeting.
18. The decision of withdrawal of affiliation, approval by the Government and final notification issued by the University are ex-facie not in conformity with Section 48 of the Act. Though an attempt has been made by the University to contend that the provisions of Section 48 are complied with, but failed to substantiate the same with the relevant material. The motion has to be moved for withdrawal of the affiliation only by the Syndicate after giving notice of it in writing giving the grounds on which it is made. No such notice by the Member of the Syndicate is issued to the petitioners. Similarly, the other Sub-sections of sending a copy of the notice and the written statement to the principal of the college concerned is adhered to. It is only on receipt of the representation or on the expiry of the period referred to in Sub-section [3], considering the notice of
- 53 -
motion, statement and representation and after the inspection by LIC in further consultation with the academic council, a report has to be made to the Senate. On receipt of such report, the Senate after holding further enquiry, if found to be necessary, has to record its opinion. It is on the resolution obtained with the support of 2/3rd of the members present at the meeting of the Senate, the Registrar is required to submit the proposal and all proceedings of the academic council, the Syndicate and the Senate to the Government. The Government after inquiry, if any, as required, shall make the recommendation to the University. The grounds for withdrawal or modification of the affiliation has to be stated in the order of the Government made under Sub-section [7] of 48. None of these provisions are complied with, in the present set of cases. The Government has passed the order under Section 48]6] in a perfunctory manner similarly, university has issued the notification under Section
- 54 -
48(7) without assigning any ground for the withdrawal of the affiliation.
19. At this juncture, it is apt to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary And Higher Secondary Education supra, where the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed thus:
"The reasons are harbinger between the mind of the maker of the order to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. It also exclude the chances to reach arbitrary, whimsical or capricious decision or conclusion. The reasons assure an inbuilt support to the conclusion/decision reached. The order when it effects the right of a citizen or a person, irrespective of the fact, whether it is quasi- judicial or administrative fair play requires recording of germane and relevant precise reasons. The recording of reasons is also an assurance that the authority concerned consciously applied its mind to the facts on record. It also aids the appellate or revisional authority or the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 or the Appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 136 to see whether the authority concerned acted fairly and justly to meet out justice to the aggrieved person.
- 55 -
The omnipresence and omniscience of the principle of natural justice acts as deterrence to arrive at arbitrary decision in flagrant infraction of fair play. But the applicability of the principles of natural justice is not a rule of thumb or a straight jacket formula as an abstract proposition of law. It depends on the facts of the case nature of the inquiry and the effect of the order/decision on the rights of the person and attendant circumstances."
20. In the case of Kranti Associates Private Limited and Another V/s. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others, reported in [2010] 9 SCC 496, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held thus:
"47. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds:
[a]. In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.
[b]. A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.
[c]. Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.
- 56 -
[d]. Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.
[e]. Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.
[f]. Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.
[g]. Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts.
[h]. The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. i. Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system.
[j]. Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency.
- 57 -
[k]. If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism.
[l]. Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or `rubber-stamp reasons' is not to be equated with a valid decision making process.
[m]. It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision making not only makes the judges and decision makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harward Law Review 731-737) [n]. Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya vs. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions".
[o]. In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for
- 58 -
the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "Due Process".
21. For the aforesaid reasons, the order of withdrawal of affiliation by the University and the approval by the State Government issued without adhering to the procedure prescribed under Section 48 is wholly unjustifiable. It is the basic principle of law long settled that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all. Mere pretence of compliance would not satisfy the requirement of law. It is also well settled law that one of the attributes of the valid order is recording of reasons in support of the decision taken. The natural justice requires reason to be recorded for the conclusions made. The order/notification dated 14.10.2019 and 18.10.2019 issued without assigning reasons is nothing but in flagrant infraction of the principles of natural justice. The recording of reasons by
- 59 -
the University/Government would be an assurance that they have consciously applied their mind to the facts on record. In the absence of the reasons, the order of the University/Government cannot be approved.
22. In the case of United Bank of India supra, while considering the question whether the plaint was duly signed and verified by competent person in a case relating to the suit for recovery of money filed by the Bank observed that in cases where the suits are instituted or defended on behalf of a public corporation, public interest should not be permitted to be defeated on a mere technicality. Procedural defects which do not go to the root of the matter should not be permitted to defeat a just cause. There is sufficient power in the Courts, under the Code of Civil Procedure, to ensure that injustice is not done to any party who has a just case. As far as possible a substantive right should not
- 60 -
be allowed to be defeated on account of a procedural irregularity which is curable.
23. In Prabhudas Damodar Kotecha and Others, in the context of Section 41 of Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, [as amended by Maharashtra Act No.XIX of 1976] and Section 52 of the Easements Act observed that Noscitur a sociis is merely a rule of construction and it cannot prevail in cases where it is clear that the wider words are intentionally used by the Legislature in order to make the scope of the defined word correspondingly wider. Further, it is held that Golden-rule is that the words of a statute must be prima facie be given their ordinary meaning when the language or phraseology employed by the Legislature is precise and plain. This by itself proclaims the intention of the Legislature in unequivocal terms, the same must be given effect to and it is unnecessary to fall upon the legislative history, statement of objects and reasons,
- 61 -
frame work of the statute etc. Such an exercise need be carried out, only when the words are unintelligible, ambiguous or vague.
24 In the case of National Council for Teacher Education and Another, the Hon'ble Apex Court held thus:
"23. In view of the above statutory scheme, it is hard to appreciate the litigious approach of the Council and the present controversy. If the Council feels that its function of inspection under Section 13 may be performed by the Regional Committees, it can so provide by invoking Section 20[6] of Section 27, as the case may be.
24. What is clear from the provisions of the 1993 Act is that post-recognition, an institution acquires a different position. On recognition by the Regional Committee under Section 14 and on affiliation being granted by the examining body, once the recognized institution starts functioning, the interest of teachers, employees and the students intervene. In order to ensure that the recognized institutions function in accordance with the 1993 Act, the 1997 Rules, Regulations and the conditions of recognition and, at the same time, the functioning of such recognized institutions is not disturbed unnecessarily, the provision for inspection
- 62 -
and follow-up action pursuant thereto has been made in Section 13.
25. By Section 13, as a matter of law, it is intended that the Council ascertains whether the recognized institutions are functioning in accordance with the provisions of the 1993 Act or not. For that purpose, it empowers the Council to cause inspection of any such institution to be made by such persons as it may authorize the Regional Committee to carry out its function of inspection. But such inspection has to be made as prescribed in Rule 8 to find out whether such recognized institution is or is not functioning in accordance with the provisions of the 1993 Act.
26. In the 1997 Rules framed by the Central Government, Rule 8 deals with the inspection and sub-rule [6] provides that the inspection team shall ascertain as to whether the recognized institution is functioning in accordance with the provisions of the 1993 Act and the Rules and Regulations made thereunder.
27. On the inspection being completed as provided in sub-section [1] and [2] of Section 13 of the 1993 Act read with Rule 8 of the 1997 Rules, the Council is required to communicate to the institution concerned its views with regard to the outcome of the inspection and, if deficiencies are found, to recommend to such institution to make up the deficiencies. The whole idea is that the Council as a parent body keeps an eye over
- 63 -
the recognized institutions that they function in accordance with the 1993 Act and the Rules and the Regulations and Orders made or issue thereunder and, if any recognized institution is found wanting in its functioning, it is given an opportunity to rectify the deficiencies.
28. Derecognition or withdrawal of recognition of a recognized institution is a drastic measure. It results in dislocating the students, teachers and the staff. That is why, the Council has been empowered under Section 13 to have a constant vigil on the functioning of a recognized institution. On the recommendation of the Council after inspection, if a recognized institution does not rectify the deficiencies and continues to function in contravention of the provisions of the 1993 Act or the Rules or the Regulations, the Regional Committee under Section 17 has full power to proceed for withdrawal of recognition in accordance with the procedure prescribed therein."
25. These judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent - University would be of little assistance to them in view of the mandate of Section 48 not being complied with.
- 64 -
26. The arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel for the University that the affiliation having been expired withdrawal of affiliation is of no consequence appears to be an after thought in view of the decision taken by the Syndicate which consists of -
(i) The Vice-Chancellor;
(ii) The Director of Health and Family Welfare, Karnataka;
(iii) The Director of Medical Education, Karnataka;
(iv) The Director of Indian System of Medicine and Homoeopathy, Karnataka;
(v) The President, Karnataka Chapter of the Indian Medical Association; (vi) The President, Karnataka Medical Council;
(vii) Three persons elected by the Senate amongst themselves;
(viii) One Professor nominated by the Vice-
Chancellor by rotation, every two years;
(ix) Two Heads of University or affiliated colleges by yearly rotation, nominated by the Vice- Chancellor;
(x) One nominee from an autonomous institution nominated by the Vice Chancellor by yearly rotation;
(xi) Three experts in the field of health sciences nominated by the Chancellor on the recommendation of the Vice-Chancellor; [(xii) Six persons nominated by the State Government from amongst eminent personalities in the field of Health Sciences of whom, -
- 65 -
[i] one shall be a person belonging to the Scheduled castes or the Scheduled Tribes; [ii] one person belonging to the Other Backward Classes;
[iii] one Woman;
[iv] one person belonging to Linguistic
Minorities; and
[v] two others."
27. Seven members of the Syndicate shall form a quorum for a meeting of the Syndicate. Any decision taken by the expert body of academicians as aforesaid, cannot be held to be futile as canvassed by the learned senior counsel for the University, unless the same is withdrawn. If there was no occasion for the University to take a decision on the subject of withdrawal of affiliation of seven colleges of the petitioners, convening several meetings to deliberate on this issue was not necessary. Having taken a decision by the University and approved by the State Government, the same is amenable to judicial review and cannot be held to be futile exercise. Improved version of arguments
- 66 -
of the University to cover up the flaws/lacuna found in the orders/notifications cannot be countenanced.
28. In view of the decision of the 142nd Syndicate meeting held on 29.06.2019 to withdraw the affiliation relating to the petitioners-Institutions, the challenge to the decision of 134th Syndicate meeting held on 13.06.2018, not to extend the affiliation and to initiate the disaffiliation process against the petitioners institutions does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the writ petitions in W.P.Nos.45577/2018 and 45727/2018 does not survive for consideration and stands dismissed as having rendered infructuous.
Similarly, the decision of the syndicate in furtherance of the show cause notice issued considering the reply submitted by the petitioners to process disaffiliation also does not survive for consideration.
- 67 -
Hence, W.P.No.20786-789/2019 and 20790-792/2019 also stand dismissed as having rendered infructuous.
In W.P.Nos.48298-318/2019, the petitioners have filed a memo for withdrawal of these writ petitions. Memo is placed on record. Accordingly, W.P.Nos.48298- 318/2019 are dismissed as withdrawn.
For the reasons mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, W.P.No.50150/2019 is allowed. The order/communication dated 14.10.2019 passed by the State of Karnataka at Annexure-R, Syndicate decision/Resolution dated 29.06.2019 at Annexure-Q, the decision of the Senate dated 01.07.2019 passed by the University insofar as the petitioners are concerned and the notification dated 18.10.2019 issued by the University at Annexures-S, S1, S2, S3, S4 and S5 are quashed.
In view of the order of withdrawal of affiliation passed by the University being set aside relating to the
- 68 -
academic years in question as aforesaid and in view of the interim order granted by this Court permitting the petitioners in W.P.Nos.48132/2019, 48148/2019, 48172/2019, 48193/2019, 48201/2019, 48215/2019, 48234/2019 and 48262/2019 to appear for the respective ensuing examinations, these writ petitions are disposed of directing the respondent-University to approve the admissions of the petitioners-Students relating to the academic years in question and issue marks cards/certificates accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE NC.