Karnataka High Court
K.S Shakira Afshan D/O K S Haroon ... vs The Executive Director on 18 July, 2012
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
Bench: Ashok B. Hinchigeri
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI
WRIT PETITION Nos.23574-23576/2012 (EDN-RES)
C/w WRIT PETITION Nos.23808-23846/2012,
23652-23656/2012 and 23657-23659/2012,
AND 23981-23985/2012
WP Nos.23574-23576/2012
BETWEEN:
1. K.S.Shakira Afshan,
D/o K.S.Haroon Rasheed,
Aged about 18 years,
R/at D.No.26-4-2876,
R.P.G.T.Road,
Hindupur - 515 201,
Anantapur District.
2. Y.Sharmila,
D/o Y.Jayasimha Naidu,
Aged about 17 years, Minor,
Represented by Natural Guardian,
Sri Y.Jayasimha Naidu,
D.No.4-2-282, D.B.Colony,
Hindupur - 515 202,
Anantapur District.
3. Mubarak Ahmed Qadr,
S/o Md.Anwar Ahamed,
Age about 17 years, Minor,
Represented by Natural Gaurdian,
Md.Anwar Ahamed,
R/at H.No.B6/1,
H.M.P.Colony,
2
Shahabad - 585 229.
Gulbarga District. ...Petitioners
(By Sri H Kantaraju, Advocate for M/s S.R.Associates)
AND:
1. The Executive Director,
Karnataka Pre University Board,
Karnataka Examination Authority,
Common Entrance Cell, 18th Cross,
Sampiga Road, Malleshwaram,
Bangalore - 560 012.
2. The Board of intermediate Education,
Andhra Pradesh,
Vidya Bhavan, Nampally,
Hyderabad - 500 001.
Represented by it's Controller.
3. The State Government of Karnataka,
Department of Education,
Vikhas Soudha, Bangalore.
Represented by its Secretary.
4. The State Government of Andhra Pradesh,
Department of Education,
Hyderabad.
Represented by its Secretary. ... Respondents
(By Sri N.K.Ramesh, Advocate for R1;
Sri R.Omkumar, AGA for R3)
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to direct to the 1st respondent
to declare the sub Rule of the CET Admission Rules 2006, as un
constitutional and Arbitrary in so far as the preventing the
students/petitioners who have appeared for advance
supplementary/Examination May 2012 but claiming the benefit
of main examination March 2012 are concern and etc.
3
WP Nos.23808-23846/2012
BETWEEN:
1. A.G.Avanisri,
D/o Sri A.Gopalakrishna,
Aged about 17 years,
R/at No.1/6, Old Town,
Mantralayam,
Andhra Pradesh,
Since Minor guradian
Represented by her Guardian,
Sri A.Vyasarajachar.
2. R.Suhas,
S/o Sri Ramakrishna,
Aged about 17 years,
R/at No.21/8/186, A.P.H.B.Colony,
S.S.Palli (P.O), Hindu,
Ananthapur, Andhra Pradesh,
Since Minor, represented by
His father, S.Ramakrishna.
3. Kontham Manish,
S/o Kontham Ramana Babu,
Aged about 18 years,
R/at No.217, Devanarayan Nivas,
14th Main, Abbigeri Main Road,
Kammagonadanahalli Halli,
Jalahalli West,
Bangalore - 560 015.
4. Boya Neeraja,
D/o Janaradhana,
Aged about 17 years,
No.C-35/6, Labs Quarters,
D.R.D.O. Township,
Kanchan Bagh,
Hyderbad - 500 058.
Since Minor, represented
By her Father, Sri Janardhana.
4
5. Mudita Bysani,
D/o Pratap.B,
Aged about 17 years,
R/at No.15-59-1, Sriramulu Street,
Madanapalle,
Andhra Pradesh - 517 325.
Since Minor, represented
By her father, Sri Pratap.B.
6. Srikanth.S,
S/o Shankaran.D,
Aged about 17 years,
No.134, BHEL HIG PH1,
R.C.Puram, Hyderabad - 502 032.
Andhra Pradesh,
Since Minor, represented
By his mother, Sashikala.
7. Sri N.Govind Reddy,
S/o N.Krishna Reddy,
Aged about 17 years,
R/at Flat No.501, Telkars Tower,
Taranagar, Serilingampally,
Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh - 500 019.
Since Minor, Represented by
His mother, Dhanalakshmi.
8. Sri Balija Uday Kumar,
S/o B.Eranna,
Aged about 17 years,
R/at Silpa Estate,
Near Jugulamba Temple,
Yemmigannur (Post),
Kurnool District - 518 360,
Andhra Pradesh - 518 360.
Since Minor, represented
By her guardian, Sri Shivarudrappa.
9. Sri G Suresh,
S/o G Sharabhanna,
Aged about 17 years,
5
R/at No.6-305, 37/1,
7G1 Colony, Adoni,
Kurnool District - 518 301,
Andhra Pradesh.
Since Minor, represented
By his guardian, Sri Shivarudrappa.
10. Medum Abhishek,
S/o Medum Adiseshaiah,
Aged about 17 years,
R/at 17-1-43, Flat No.2,
Manikanta Residency,
Beside Sai Baba Temple,
Venugopal Nagar, Anantapur,
Andhra Pradesh,
Since Minor, represented
By his father, Sri Medum Adiseshaiah.
11. Gadara Pramod,
S/o G.Viswanath,
Aged about 17 years,
R/at Sree Venkateshwara Colony,
House No.6/305/53, Adoni,
Kurnool District - 518 301,
Andhra Pradesh,
Since Minor, represented
By his father, Sri G Vishwanath.
12. Akhil Anilkumar,
S/o P B Anil Kumar,
Aged about 17 years,
R/at Quatress No.VV3/2,
Rajashree Cement, Aditya Nagar,
Malkhed Road, Gulbarga - 585 292.
Represented by his father,
Sri P.B.Anilkumar.
13. Bibindhar.M.V,
S/o Muraleedharan Pillai,
C/o Saganna M.Kannaka,
Aged about 17 years,
6
House No.1-9/23-B/4,
Near Eswar Temple,
Khubha Plot, Gulbarga - 585 102.
Since Minor, represented
By his father, Sri Muraleedharan Pillai.
14. Chittetti Prithviraj,
S/o Chitteti Udaya Bhaskar,
Aged about 17 years,
R/at C/o Govindaraj,
3rd Cross,Ramakka Badavane,
Gangamma Gudi Road, Hoskote,
Bangalore - 562 114.
15. K.Arvind,
S/o K.Govindu,
Aged about 17 years,
T.G.P. Junior College,
Adoni - 518 301, Kurnool District,
Andhra Pradesh - 518 301.
Since Minor, represented
By his father, Sri K.Govindu.
16. K.Aishwarya,
D/o Kalmangi Mallikarjuna,
Aged about 17 years,
R/at No.13/245, Santhepet,
Adoni, Andhra Pradesh,
Since Minor, Represented by her
Guardian, Sri Kalmangi Vishwanath,
S/o I.B.Tadasad.
17. T.G.Varun Patil,
S/o T.Veerendra Patil,
Aged about 17 years,
R/at Ramadurga Post,
Chippagiri Mandal,
Alur Taluk, Kurnool District - 518 396.
Andhra Pradesh.
Since Minor, represented
By his Guardian, Sri Nagabhushanappa,
S/o Rudrappa.
7
18. Viswa Brahmana Nikhitha,
D/o V.Venkateshachari,
Aged about 18 years,
House No.1/89, Near Ramalingeswara
Temple, Mantralayam - 518 345,
Kurnool District.
Andhra Pradesh - 518 345.
19. Md.Asim Mujteba,
S/o Mohd.Ejazuddin,
Aged about 17 years,
R/at No.5-2-276, Gole Khana,
Bidar - 585 401, Karnataka
Since Minor, represented
By his Guardian, Sri Aqueerbur Raheman.
20. Ibadur Raheman,
S/o Ataur Raheman,
Aged about 17 years,
R/at No.5-2-182/2, Gole Khane,
Bidar - 585 401.
Since Minor, represented
By his Guardian, Sri Aqueerbur Raheman.
21. Srivaishnavi,
D/o G.Ganesh,
Aged about 17 years,
R/at No.2/B4, Main Road,
Parigi (P.O), Parigi(M),
Ananthapur District - 515 261.
Since Minor, represented by her
Father, Sri G.Ganesh.
22. G.Nandan Sai Sujan,
S/o G.Suresh Chandra Kumar,
Aged about 17 years,
C/o K.Ravindran,
No.21, 2nd Cross, M.V.Nagar,
Kalkeri Main Road, Ramurthy Nagar,
Bangalore - 560 016.
Since, Minor represented by his
Father, Sri G.Suresh Chandra Kumar.
8
23. A.Swetha,
D/o O.R.Aswatha Reddy,
Aged about 17 years,
C/o K.Ravindran,
D.No.4-121, K.Basavanapalli,
Hindupur (M), Anantapur(D),
Andhra Pradesh.
Since, minor represented by her
Mother, Smt.G.N.Sundnaramma,
W/o Sri O.R.Aswatha Reddy.
24. Nidhi Subramanya,
D/o H.S.Subramanya,
Central Bank of India,
Bank Street, Koti,
Hyderabad - 500 095, A.P.
Since Minor, represented by
Her father, Sri H.S.Subramanya.
25. Sachin Kumar,
S/o Sangapa,
Aged about 17 years,
R/at Plot No.86,
CMC, No.18-3-356/1,
BDA Layout, Miloore Road,
Bidar - 585 403.
Since, minor represented by his
Father, Sri Sangappa.
26. Chintala Parthasarathy Choudri,
S/o C.V.Balakrishna Rao,
Aged about 17 years,
R/at No.272/1, Hope Farm Circle,
Opp:Maithri Layout, Whitefield,
Bangalore - 560 066.
Since, minor represented by his
Father, Sri C.V.Balakrishna Rao.
27. M.Akshay,
S/o S.Jagannath,
Aged about 17 years,
R/at No.3-161, Main Bazaar,
9
Parigi, Ananthapur District,
Andhra Pradesh - 515 261.
Since, minor represented by his
Guardian, Sri G.Ganesh,
S/o G.V.Govindappa.
28. Nikitha Reddy Patil,
D/o Bakkareddy Patil,
Aged about 17 years,
No.2-22-232/B/F-2, Srinivasam
Apartment, Madhavinagar,
U.M.Hospital Road,
Opp: Hanuman Temple, Kutkatpally,
Hyderabad - 500 072, A.P,
Since minor, represented by
Her father, Sri Bakkareddy Patil.
29. G.Bhargav,
S/o G.Hanumantharayappa,
Aged about 17 years,
D.No.4-159, K.Basavanapalli,
Kirikera Post, Hindupur Mandal,
Ananthapur District - 515 211.
Since minor, represented by
His father, Sri G.Hanumantharayappa.
30. K.N.Indraja,
D/o Sri G.Nanjundappa,
Aged about 17 years,
D.No.3-3-4, Mukkidipeta,
Hindupur, Ananthapur - 515 201, A.P,
Since minor, represented by her
Guardian, Siddalingappa.G.
S/o Sri Papanna.
31. M.S.Suprita,
D/o M.N.Srinath,
Aged about 17 years,
C/o M/s NMDC Limited,
'Khanija Bhavan', 10-3-311/A,
Caste Hills, Masab Tank
10
Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 028,
Andhra Pradesh.
Since minor, represented by her
Mother, Smt.Veena
W/o Sri M.N.Srinath.
32. Mohd.Sultan Nadeem,
S/o Mohd. Azeemuddin,
Aged about 17 years,
R/at H.No.5-2-182/2,
Golekhana, Bidar - 585 401.
Since minor, represented
By his Guardian, Sri Aqueebur Raheman.
33. Krishna Balbheem,
S/o Balbheem Dhage,
Aged about 17 years,
R/at H.No.4-1-43,
Noorkhan Taleem,
Mangalpet Road,
Bidar - 585 401.
Since minor, represented
By his father, Sri Balbheem Dhage.
34. Vineet,
S/o Chanabasappa.M.Molkere,
Aged about 17 years,
R/at H.No.8-9-270/A-11,
Bidar - 585 401.
Since minor, represented by
His father, Sri Chanabasappa M.Molkere.
35. H.Naina Rao,
D/o H.K.Randuranga Rao,
Aged about 17 years,
R/at No.11-4-33, Fort,
Hindupur - 515 201, A.P,
Since minor, represented by its
Father Sri H.K.Panduranga Rao.
11
36. Someshwara Marla,
S/o Vijay Kumar.M,
Aged about 17 year,
R/at H.No.1-4-203,
Govindagiri Colony,
Koratla - 505 326, A.P,
Since minor represented
His father Guardian Thriveni.
37. G Harshitha,
D/o G.Chandrashekar,
Aged about 17 years,
R/at H.No.9-2-219,
Lakshmi Bazar,
Rayadurga - 515 865, A.P,
Since minor, represented by
Her father, G.Chandrashekar.
38. Kuruhalli Mrutyunjaya Rao Mantunath,
S/o Kuruhalli Mrutyunjaya Rao,
Aged about 17 years,
R/at H.No.1-3-149,
Srirama Temple,
Hindupur, A.P,
Since minor, represented by
His Guardian, Krishnamurthy.
39. D.V.Saroja,
D/o Sri Venkateshwarappa,
Aged about 17 years,
R/at Amarapuram,
Madakshira, Andhra Pradesh.
Since minor, represented by
Her father Venkataswamapa. ... Petitioners
(By Sri H.R.Anantha Krishna Murthy, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Rep.by its Principal
Secretary to Education department,
12
M S Building, Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Karnataka Examinations Authority,
18th Cross, Sampige Road,
Malleshwaram, Bangalore - 560 012.
Represented by its Executive
Director. ... Respondents
(By Sri R.Omkumar, AGA for R1;
Sri N.K.Ramesh, Advocate for R2)
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the notification dated
29.6.2012 and 5.7.2012 both issued by 2nd respondent vide
Annexures-A and B and etc.
WP Nos.23652-23656/2012 and 23657-23659/2012
BETWEEN:
1. Gadhamsetty Sai Ganesh,
Aged about 17 years,
Since minor represented by his
Natural Guardian and father
Dr.G.RaviKumar,
S/o Late G.Vishwanadam Setty,
Aged about 46 years,
Geetha Hospital,
Near old bus stand,
Banaganapalle,
Karnool District - 518 124,
Andhra Pradesh.
2. Ashita,
Aged about 17 years,
Since minor represented by her
Natural Guardian and father
Anil Kumar, S/o Shankarappa,
Aged about 44 years,
R/at Plot No.6,
Nagamarpalli Layout,
13
Shivanagar, North Bidar,
(Studied intermidiate at Hyderabad,
Andhra Pradesh)
3. Abhishek Chintamani,
Aged about 17 years,
Since minor represented by
his natural Guardian and father
Raju Chintamani,
S/o Late Sham Rao Chintamani,
Aged about 48 years,
R/at Plot No.62,
Raghuvendra Nivas,
Adarsh Colony, Bidar,
(Studied intermidiate at Hyderabad,
Andhra Pradesh)
4. Kavya Shree,
Aged about 17 years,
Since minor represented by
His natural Guardian and father
Nand Kishor Singa,
S/o Purushottam Singa,
Aged about 43 years,
R/at House No.8-9-618,
Behind Old Bus Stand,
Sree Geetha Complex,
Bidar. (Studied intermidiate at Hyderabad,
Andhra Pradesh)
5. Akshay Kumar,
Aged about 17 years,
Since minor represented by
His natural Guardian and father
Dattatry Y, S/o Late Exhwariah,
Aged about 42 years,
R/at 8-9-270/16,
Guru Nanak colony,
Near new town Police Station,
Bidar. (Studied intermidiate at Hyderabad,
Andhra Pradesh)
14
6. K.Rohan,
Aged about 17 years,
Since minor represented by
his natural Guardian and father
K Raju, S/o Eshwarayya Katkam,
Aged about 44 years,
R/at H No.8-10-66,
Behind Old Bus stand,
Katkam Building,
Bidar. (Studied intermidiate at Hyderabad,
Andhra Pradesh)
7. Piyush,
Aged about 17 years,
Since minor represented by
his natural Guardian and father
Dashrath Diojode,
S/o Late Pandarinath,
Aged about 49 years,
R/at H.No.8-11-179,
Opp.K.E.B.Site,
Raghuvendra Temple,
Bidar - 585 401.
(Studied intermidiate at Hyderabad,
Andhra Pradesh)
8. Nikita Kashampurkar,
Aged about 17 years,
Since minor represented by
his natural Guardian and mother
Smt.Ujwala Kashmpurkar,
W/o Raju Kashampurkar,
Aged about 40 years,
R/at H.No.8-11-24 (New),
KEB Road, new Housind colony,
Bidar - 585 401.
(Studied intermidiate at Hyderabad,
Andhra Pradesh) ... Petitioners
(By Sri Vivek S.Reddy, Advocate for
Sri K N Subba Reddy, Advocate)
15
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Secretary
Department of Higher Education,
Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore.
2. Karnataka Examinations Authority,
Represented by its Executive Director,
No.18th Cross, Sampige Road,
Malleshwaram, Bangalore - 12. ... Respondents
(By Sri R.Omkumar, AGA for R1;
Sri N.K.Ramesh, Advocate for R2)
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the notification dated
5.7.12, issued by the R2, Executive Director, Karnataka
Examination Authority, Vide Ann-E and etc.
W.P.Nos.23981-23985/2012:
BETWEEN:
1. KowlaliSharanya Madhyastha,
Aged about 17 years,
Since minor represented by her
Natural guardian and father
K.Shankar Narayana,
S/o K.Ramachandra Rao,
Aged about 50 years,
R/at No.13-624,
Ramachandra Nagar,
Anathapura, Andhra Pradesh.
2. Mudita Bysani,
Aged about 17 years,
Since minor represented by her
Natural guardian and father
B.Pratap,
S/o B.Ananthapadmanabha,
16
Aged about 50 years,
R/at 15/50-1, Sriramulu Street,
Madanapalle, Chitoor District,
Andhra Pradesh.
3. Mounica Naidu,
Aged about 17 years,
Since minor represented by her
Natural guardian and father
Sri Venu Gopal,
S/o M.Venkata Swamy,
Aged about 43 years,
R/at No.10, 24th Main,
18th Cross, J.P.Nagar,
7th Phase, Bangalore-78.
4. Kulkarni Deepal,
Aged about 17 years,
Since minor represented by her
Natural guardian and father
Sri Kulkarni Aravind,
S/o late Narasimha Rao,
Aged about 51 years,
R/at D.No.9/200, BMM Gate Road,
Gutakal, Anantapur District,
Ananthapur.
5. Kuruva Naveen Kumar,
Aged about 17 years,
Since minor represented by her
Natural guardian and father
S/o late K.Chandra Shekar,
R/at D.No.-MIG-433,
APHB Colony, Adoni,
Karnool District-510302.
Andhra Pradesh. ... Petitioners
(By Sri Vivek S.Reddy, Advocate for
Sri K N Subba Reddy, Advocate)
17
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Secretary
Department of Higher Education,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore.
2. Karnataka Examinations Authority,
Represented by its Executive Director,
No.18th Cross, Sampige Road,
Malleshwaram, Bangalore - 12. ... Respondents
(By Sri R.Omkumar, AGA for R1;
Sri N.K.Ramesh, Advocate for R2)
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash declare that Rule 30-
A(i), (ii) of the Karnataka Pre-University Course State Level
Public Examination (Amendment) Rules, 1998 as arbitrary, ultra
vires, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India and etc.
These writ petitions coming on for further dictation this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
As the questions of facts and law involved are similar, all these petitions are clubbed, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The petitioners, who have passed out the Intermediate Public Examination, (equivalent to PUC of Karnataka) conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh, have appeared for the Common Entrance Test ('CET' for short) 18 conducted by the Karnataka Examination Authority ('KEA' for short) for admission to the undergraduate professional courses. Their grievance is that just because they have opted to appear for the supplementary examination, their applications for admission are rejected.
3. Sri Vivek S.Reddy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.23652-23656/2012 and 23657- 23659/2012 and W.P.Nos.23981-23985/2012 submits that Rule 30-A(2) of the Karnataka Pre-University Course State Level Public Examination Rules, 1997 ('1997 Rules' for short) have no application for the examination being conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. He brought to my notice Rule 1(3) of the 1997 Rules, which states that the said Rule shall apply only to the Pre-University Course Examinations conducted by the Department of Pre-University Education. He submits that the Rules governing the admission to the professional educational institutions are the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Government seats in Professional Educational Institutions Rules, 2006 ('2006 Rules' for short). Rule 3(1)(b) of the 2006 Rules prescribes the eligibility criteria 19 as a pass in the second year Pre-University or XII standard or equivalent examinations held preceding the entrance test. He submits that it is not in dispute that the petitioners have passed out the Intermediate Public Examination conducted by the Andhra Pradesh Board in March 2012, that the said Course is equivalent to PUC and that the said examination is preceding the CET, 2012. He would submit that the special law prevails over the general law.
4. He submits that the petitioners are all meritorious students. It is not that any of the petitioners has failed in the examination. Some of them have even got more than 90%. Only with a view to improve their performance, some of them opted to write the supplementary examination. Their decision to appear for the supplementary examination is innocent and bonafide. He also submits that some of the petitioners have not appeared for the supplementary examination and have already written to the Andhra Pradesh Board to permit them to retain their results of the March examination.
5. Sri Vivek Reddy relying on the Apex Court's judgment in the case of RAJ KUMAR DEY AND OTHERS v. TARAPADA 20 DEY AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1987 SC 2195 submits that the petitioners cannot be compelled to comply with a requirement, which is incapable of being complied with. The application of the 1997 Rules for Andhra Pradesh students is absolutely arbitrary.
6. He also brings to my notice the clarification issued by the Andhra Pradesh Board on 18.7.2012. It states that if any candidate obtains permission based on the marks obtained in the March examination, the performance of the May examination would automatically stand cancelled. It states that no candidate can be issued with two certificates - one for March 2012 and the other for May 2012.
7. Sri H.Kantharaj, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.23574-23576/2012 submits that the issue involved is not whether those whose have appeared for the supplementary examination are to be precluded from taking part in the counseling, because the endorsements issued by the respondents reveal that the rejection of their candidature is mainly on account of their not producing the original statement of marks. He submits that the Andhra Pradesh Board itself has 21 sent a fax message, dated 2.7.2012 to accept the memorandum of marks and to verify the same on the website.
8. He submits that no doubt the ignorance of law is not an excuse, but in the instant case there is no violation of law as such. It is not even the case of the respondents that the petitioners have committed any fraud, mischief or suppressed any information. He relies on the Apex Court's judgment in the case of KUSUM LATA v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2002 SC 2790. The Head Note portion read out by him is as follows:
"Constitution of India, Art.226 - Education - Admission - Eligibility - Admission to Diploma Course in Education - Criteria fixed - Pass in 10 + 2 examination of Haryana Board or its equivalent with 50% marks - 10 + 2 examination conducted by CBSE is admittedly equivalent examination - Scheme for passing CBSE examination requiring that candidate should pass in 5 subject - Marks in optional 6th subject not considered for passing CBSE - Petitioner a CBSE student who has scored 50% in 5 subjects - Cannot be denied admission on ground that if marks of optional 6th subject is considered his score drops below 50% - It is implicit in the eligibility clause that marks only of necessary subject for passing examination need be considered."22
9. Sri H.R.Ananthakrishna Murthy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.23808-23846/2012 submits that there is no Rule in Andhra Pradesh analogous to Rule 30-A(2) of the 1997 Rules. He submits that the Andhra Pradesh Board has already sent the communication, dated 7.7.2012 (Annexure-F1) requesting the respondent No.2 to take the Memorandum of Marks of the Examination held in March 2012 and verify the actual marks obtained by the candidates on the website.
10. Sri N.K.Ramesh, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Karnataka Examination Authority ('KEA' for short) submits that as on the day fixed for the verification of the marks cards (10.7.2012), the petitioners have not produced the original marks cards. He submits that it is humanly not possible to verify the authenticity of the claims of marks on the website, because there is paucity of time for verifying the marks cards of lakhs of students.
11. He read out Rule 10(v) of the 2006 Rules dealing with the mandatory requirement of the production of the originals. The same is extracted hereinbelow:
23
"10. Exercising option for selection of Government seats -
(v) The candidate shall produce the specified original documents along with photocopies thereof and the Special Officer may cause verification of the documents produced. The CET Cell shall retain all original documents along with one set of photocopies of the same. After seat selection the Special Officer shall issue admission order to the candidate. The candidate, upon obtaining the admission order from the CET Cell, shall report to the college concerned on or before the date specified in the admission order. The original documents in respect of all candidates shall be transferred to the respective colleges after the completion of the entire seat selection."
12. He brings to my notice the communication being sent from the Andhra Pradesh Board stating that the students have surrendered their memorandum of marks while applying for May Examination. When they do not have the original marks cards, the question of giving the admission to them would not arise, so submits Sri Ramesh.
13. He submits that 846 students of Karnataka, who have opted for the supplementary examination, are also not being permitted to take part in the regular counseling. He submits that the students, who have opted for the supplementary 24 examination, can appear for the supplementary round of counseling. He submits that if a direction is given to the KEA to permit the students to take part in the regular counseling operations, even when they have failed to produce the marks cards on the day fixed for the verification of the marks cards and even when the Rules do not permit their participation, it would disrupt the ongoing process. He submits that pursuant to the Apex Court's judgment, the time-schedule is set by KEA as per which the admission process has to be completed by 25.7.2012 and the students have to report to the concerned colleges within 31.7.2012.
14. Sri R.Omkumar, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the Government has also raised a threshold bar to the maintainability of these petitions. He submits that the decision of the KEA can be challenged by way of appeal before the Principal Secretary to Government (Higher Education), Education Department, Government of Karnataka invoking Rule 14 of the 2006 Rules.
15. Sri R.Omkumar submits that Rule 30-A(2) has stood the test of time. If the similarly placed students of Karnataka 25 are not being permitted to participate, the question of permitting the Andhra Pradesh students to participate in the counseling operations would not arise at all.
16. He submits that it is only normal that when a candidate appears in one paper in the supplementary examination, more often not he gets the higher marks. But such a candidate cannot be permitted to have an edge over a candidate, who is claiming on the basis of his marks in all the papers in the annual examination. Otherwise, it leads to the dissimilarly placed students being treated similarly. The validity of the Rule made in a State cannot be challenged on the ground that there is no corresponding Rule in another State.
17. The submissions of the learned counsel have received my thoughtful consideration.
18. The question that falls for my consideration is whether the petitioners, who have opted to appear for the supplementary examination can be permitted to take part in the regular counseling process for admission to the undergraduate professional courses. If the petitioners were to appear for the 26 PUC Examination in Karnataka, they would not have been permitted to take part in the said counseling, because Rule 30- A(2) and (3) of the 1997 Rules preclude such candidates from participating. The said Rule is extracted hereinbelow:
"30-A. Rejection of results by the candidate.- (2) The candidate cannot opt for the marks of the previous examination, once the candidate writes the answer paper in the subsequent examination, in accordance with sub-rule (1).
(3) A candidate who rejects the result in any subject but does not give the examination subsequently in that subject may retain the rejected result by intimating in writing his intention to the Department, subject to payment of fee specified by the Department for issue of a duplicate marks certificate, before the commencement of the next consecutive examination."
19. The operation of the Rules precludes the similarly placed students of Karnataka from participating in the regular counseling. Besides, it may also be a policy of the State Government to conduct a separate counseling for those, who have opted to appear for the supplementary examination.
20. The candidates deciding to appear for the supplementary examination have to surrender their statements 27 of marks of the annual examination held in March. If they are not surrendered, then there would be two sets of original statements of marks of II year PUC. It may create a lot of confusion for the KEA while verifying their original marks cards. In view of the need to verify the marks cards of lakhs of students in few weeks' time, the KEA authorities may be insisting for the original statements of marks in one sitting. They may not be ready to act upon the memorandum of marks or the provisional marks cards. The insistence for the production of the original marks cards cannot be held to be bad.
21. The process has to be completed within a given time- frame. To adhere to the time-schedule, the authorities may be racing against the time. Viewed in this perspective, the letters received from the Andhra Pradesh Board that the KEA has to do the verification of the marks cards with reference to the website may not be acted upon. Because the verification of lakhs of marks cards with reference to the website may not be feasible and practical.
22. I also see considerable force in the submission of Sri R.Omkumar that one candidate may retain marks obtained by 28 him in five subjects of the annual examination held in March and seek the improvement by appearing for only one paper in the supplementary examination, he would be scoring high marks in that paper. Such marks obtained by a candidate in two examinations cannot be compared with the marks obtained by the other candidates in any one given examination.
23. But the question is, if a student opts to take up the supplementary examination, but later does not appear for the supplementary examination or if he appears for the supplementary examination, but does not make any claim based on the marks in the supplementary examination, what should happen to them? If his claim is based only on the marks obtained in the March Examination, why should he be precluded from the regular counseling? I see with concern that some of the petitioners have appeared for the supplementary examination not because they have failed in the annual examination. As a matter of fact, some of them have scored more than 90%. They have appeared for the supplementary examination only as a measure of further improvement. Whether such candidates from Karnataka or Andhra Pradesh or any other State, are to be excluded from the counseling 29 operations is a debatable issue. This is an issue, which the decision-maker has to re-visit.
24. It is also more so because there is no violation of any law. The petitioner students have not committed any fraud, mischief or suppressed any material facts. Their conduct is flawless and blemishless. It is possible to contend that the petitioners' subsequent act is a surplusage, if they are entitled to secure a seat based on their marks in the March examination. Their act of opting to appear for the examination cannot militate against them irretrievably. In the case of Kusum Lata (supra), the Apex Court has taken the considered view that while applying the eligibility clause, the marks only of the necessary subjects need be considered.
25. The decision regarding the permission for the students to take part in the counseling session based only on their performance in the annual examination, notwithstanding their act of opting to appear for the supplementary examination, has to be taken for all the students. The relief, if it is to be granted, cannot be confined to the petitioners and that too to the exclusion of the students from Karnataka.
30
26. It is one thing to say that the students of other States should not be discriminated against. But, the students of Karnataka State in their home State should also not be subjected to any discrimination. The students from other States cannot have the privileges, denied to the students of Karnataka.
27. Taking all these aspects of the matter into pragmatic consideration, I form the considered view that the matter requires a comprehensive solution. The Government has to take a call on the issue and take a decision, which would be applicable to 846 students of Karnataka and also to the students from other States. I therefore deem it necessary to dispose of these petitions with a direction to the petitioners to file the appeals before the Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Karnataka Government, invoking Rule 14 of the 2006 Rules latest by tomorrow. The Principal Secretary shall call for the views of the KEA. It is also open to him to consult a cross- section of the educationists/academicians in the matter. He shall take a decision in the matter of permitting the similarly placed students (a) who have opted to appear for the supplementary examination, but have not appeared for the said examination (b) who have appeared for the supplementary examination, but who 31 are basing their claims only on the marks obtained in the main/annual examination to take part in the regular counseling session, in 3 days' time from the date of the receipt of the appeal memorandums from the petitioners. The Principal Secretary shall take into account (a) the views of the experts in the field (b) the scenario prevailing in other States (c) the viability and practicability of bringing about the change for the present academic year. Needless to observe that the appeals of the similarly placed students, if any, filed invoking Rule 14 of the 2006 Rules, are to be taken up with the petitioners' anticipated appeals.
28. These petitions are accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE MD/PMR