Karnataka High Court
Vandana D/O Vittal And Ors vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 20 January, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
W.P.NO.203250/2022 (EDN-EX)
BETWEEN:
1. Kum.Vandana D/o Vittal,
Age : 19 years, Occ: Student,
Divine Institute of Nursing Science,
Kalaburagi, R/o Suntanoor Village,
Tq. Aland, District Kalaburagi - 585 101.
2. Kum.Aishwaraya D/o Yankayya,
Aged about 19 years, Occ: Student,
R/o MSK Mill, Siddaratha Nagar,
Kalaburagi, District : Kalaburgi - 585 101.
3. Kum.Prajwal S/o Gunderaya,
Aged about 20 years, Occ: Student,
R/o Gola B Village, Taluk Aland,
Dist : Kalaburagi - 585 302.
4. Kum Ambika D/o Krishnappa,
Aged about 20 years,
R/o Kalaburagi - 585 101.
5. Usha D/o Mallappa,
Aged about 20 years,
R/o Shakti Nagar,
Kalaburagi - 585 101.
.... Petitioners
(By Sri M.S.Shyam Sundar Senior counsel and
Sri Gopalkrishna B.Yadav, Advocate)
2
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
By its Under Secretary,
Health and Family Welfare,
Vikas Soudha, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
2. Karnataka State Diploma in
Nursing Examination Board,
1st Floor, Library Block,
BMCRI Campus, K.R.Market,
Bengaluru - 560 002
by its Chairman.
3. Karnataka State Nursing Council,
Gandhinagar, Bengaluru,
Bengaluru - 560 001
by its Registrar.
4. Karnataka Nursing in
Paramedical Science Education (Regulation),
Authority BMCRI Campus,
Bengaluru - 560 001
by its Registrar.
... Respondents
(By Sri Viranagouda M.Biradar, AGA for R1;
Sri Shivakumar Kallor, Advocate for R2 and R4;
Smt.Sumana Baliga Advocate for R3)
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari by
quashing the order dated 25.11.2021 bearing
No.MED.663MMC 2022 passed by respondent No.1 vide
Annexure-C, issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1 st
and 2nd respondents to complete further process and
declare the results and to allow the writ petition with costs
3
and grant such other relief's as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit to grant in the circumstances of this case.
The above Writ Petition having been heard on
19.01.2023 and reserved for orders, coming on for
"pronouncement of orders" this day, the court made the
following:
ORDER
The petitioners in this petition are aggrieved by the order at Annexure-C wherein the Under Secretary to Department of Medical Education has taken a decision to cancel the examinations conducted between 22.11.2022 to 25.11.2022 for the students studying in first and second year of Diploma Course in General Nursing and Midwifery.
2. In terms of Annexure-C the direction is also issued to the Special Officer of Nursing and Paramedical Science Education (Regulation) Authority to hold the exams afresh. The Annexure-C indicates that such a decision is taken in view of malpractices in the examination in certain centers where the examination was conducted.
4
3. Learned Senior Counsel Sri M.S.Shyam Sundar appearing for the petitioners would contend that the decision taken in terms of Annexure-C is without authority of law and liable to be quashed.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that in the Writ Petition No.23742/2022 which is decided on 08.12.2022, the decision to cancel the examinations and to hold fresh examinations is upheld.
5. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners would submit that the contentions raised in the present writ petition are not raised in the earlier petition and he would submit that the petitioners' case has to be considered on merits.
6. This court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar.
7. Referring to the provisions of Karnataka Nursing and Paramedical Sciences Education (Regulation) Authority Act, 2012 (for short 'Act'), it is urged that only 5 the authority constituted under Section 3 of the Act can conduct the examinations exercising the power under Section 17(4) of the Act. And only the said authority can take a decision to cancel the examination and the manner in which the examinations are cancelled would demonstrate that there is no application of mind. It is submitted that the Under Secretary to Health and Family Welfare Department is not competent person to take a decision to cancel the examination.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the State Government has the power under Section 57(3) of the Act to issue necessary directions to the Officers or Authorities under the Act to carryout the purpose of this Act.
9. From reading of Section 57(3) of the Act it is apparent that the State Government has the power to issue necessary directions to the authorities or officers under the Act to carryout the object of the Act. There is no difficulty in holding that in a situation where the State has 6 noticed some malpractices in certain examination centers, in order to ensure fairness and transparency in conducting the examinations the State is justified in taking a decision to cancel the earlier examinations and to hold fresh examinations.
10. It is the contention of the petitioners that no malpractice has taken place in the centers where the petitioners appeared for the examinations. Thus, it is contended that there cannot be a decision to cancel the examinations held in the centers where the petitioners appeared for the examinations. Though the argument seems attractive same cannot be accepted. The reasons are not far to seek. In the absence of any plea and proof relating to malafide intentions on the part of the State to take such a decision and when the decision does not appear to be the one intended to favour certain students, the court would presume that such decision is taken in the interest of all the concerned. Where the State has taken a decision to hold the fresh examinations keeping in mind 7 the larger interest and to ensure fairness and transparency in conducting the examinations, unless the petitioners are able to establish arbitrary exercise of power with a malafide intentions, the decision cannot be set-aside in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction. Merely because the petitioners participated in the examinations, they cannot claim to possess a right to insist that the papers should be evulated and there should not be a fresh a examination. It is more so, in a situation where no malafides are attributed in the decision taken to cancel the previous examinations. Petitioners have not alleged any malafides against the authorities while questioning the decision. There is nothing on record the decision is taken to confer undue favour to some and to curtail any rights of the petitioners. It may be true that no malpractice might have taken place in the centers where the petitioners appeared for the examination. However, same does not confer a right on the petitioners to challenge the decision taken in canceling the examinations as the decision appears to have been 8 taken keeping in mind in larger interest of all the students who have appeared for the examinations.
11. It is also to be noticed that the W.P.No.23742/2022 is filed by the Association of Nursing and Allied Health Science Institutions. Since the decision in the said case has upheld the decision to conduct fresh examinations by canceling the earlier examinations, this Court does not find any grounds to grant the relief claimed in the petition. If the examinations conducted earlier in certain centers are allowed to be retained and examinations are held afresh in those centers where the malpractice is noticed, it will lead to a situation where there will be two different sets of question papers. Though such a thing is not altogether impermissible while conducting examinations, it is desirable to have same set of question papers to all the students appearing in different centers. In that view of the matter also the decision taken by the State to hold examinations afresh in 9 all centers by canceling earlier examinations, is a sound decision which does not call for interference by this court.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE sn