Karnataka High Court
S.B.Patil Dental College And Hospital ... vs State Of Karntaka And Ors on 4 September, 2020
Author: Krishna S.Dixit
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH R
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.KRISHNA BHAT
WRIT PETITION Nos.203589-203603/2015 (EDN-AD)
C/W
WRIT PETITION Nos.202180/2016 & 202192-2211/2016
(EDN-AD)
WRIT PETITION Nos.202122-202143/2016 (EDN-AD)
WRIT PETITION Nos.30156-30181/2016 (EDN-AD)
WRIT PETITION Nos.202267-202271/2016 (EDN-AD)
In W.P.Nos.203589-603/2015:
Between:
1. S.B.PATIL DENTAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL
NAUBAD, BIDAR-585402
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL
DR.DINESH SHARMA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
2. MR.ARBAZ SHAIKH
S/O MR.RASHID MINYA SHAIK
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
3. MS.RUIKAR RUTUJA D/O MR.SANJAY
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
2
4. MS.PRIYANKA PATNAIK
D/O MR.PRASANNA
KUMAR PARNAIK
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
5. MS SIVANEPALLY SRI PRIYA SRAVYA
D/O MR.S.PHANI PRAKASH
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
6. MS.KOLHE PRANITA D/O MR.GOROBA
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
7. MS.SMRITY SINHA
D/O MR.SHARDA NAND SINHA
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
8. MS.NIRGUDI AKSHATA
D/O MR.AUDHOOT
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
9. MS.JITTA HAVILA SOWJANYA
D/O MR.JITTA VENKATA RAMANA RAO
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
10 . MS.MOHAMMED AYESHA SIDDIQUA
D/O MR.RAFEEQ SIDDIQUI
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
11 . MS.L SHIKHA D/O MR L RAJESH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
12 . MS.HADIYA NABELA SARWAT
D/O MR.ABDUL VAKEEL
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
13 . MS.SANA VAKEEL D/O MR.ABDUL VAKEEL
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
3
14 . MS KHATOD ASHWINI D/O MR.DATTA PRASAS
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
15 . MR. ZANWAR KRISHNA S/O MR. GOPAL
AGED:ABOUT 20 YEARS
PETITIONERS 2 TO 15 ARE ALL
STUDENTS STUDYING IN
FISRST YEAR BDS COURSE
AT S.B.PATIL DENTAL COLLEGE
AND HOSPITAL NAUBAD, BIDAR-585402
... PETITIONERS
(By Sri R.S.Kadaganchi, Advocate)
And:
1. STATE OF KARNTAKA
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
MEDICAL EDUCATION MINISTRY OF
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
VIKAS SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001
2. THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA
IWAN-E-GALIBMARG, KOTLA ROAD,
NEW DELHI-110002
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
3. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF
HEALTH SCIENCE FOR KARNATAKA
4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-560041
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR
... RESPONDENTS
(By Smt. Archana P. Tiwari, AGA for R1 & R2;
Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, Advocate for R3)
These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and
227 of Constitution of India, praying to (a) Call for records
4
which ultimately resulted in passing the impugned
communication Annexure-A dated 04.03.2015 bearing
No.AC2/Adm/BDS/2014-15/D023 and Communication
Annexure-A1 dated 04.06.2015 bearing No. RGUHS/AC2-
ADM/BDS/2014-15/D023 passed by the 3rd respondent (b)
Issue an order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari,
quashing the communication Annexure-A dated 04.03.2015
bearing No.AC2/Adm/BDS/2014-15/D023 and
Communication Annexure-A1 dated 04.06.2015 bearing
No.RGUHS/AC2-ADM/BDS/ 2014-15/D023 passed by the
3rd respondent disapproving the admissions of petitioners 2
to 15 for the study of first year BDS course from the
academic year 2014-15 (c) Issue an order, direction or writ in
the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents 2 to 3 to
treat the admissions of petitioners 2 to 15 as the legal
admissions of petitioners 2 to 15 as the legal admissions and
consequently direct the respondent No.3 to approve the
admission of the petitioners 2 to 15 (d) Issue an order,
direction or writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the
respondent university to permit the petitioners 2 to 15 to
appear for the first year BDS examination and announce the
result of the students (e) Declare that the rank card sought
by the 3rd respondent for approving the admission of the
petitioner 2 to 15 is illegal and without the authority of law.
In W.P.Nos.202122-202143/2016:
Between:
1. S.B.PATIL INSTITUTE OF DENTAL SCIENCE &
RESEARCH BIDAR
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL
2. SYED NISHANTH D/O SYED KHAJA MOINUDDIN
AGE:19 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT
3. JANANI MANDAVA D/O SIVA MALLIKARJUN RAO
AGE:19 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT
5
4. MARRAPU SUSMITHA D/O MARRAPU SUDHAKAR
AGE:18 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT
5. PERI MAITREYEE D/O PERI DIVAKAR
AGE:20 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT
6. KHAJA VILAYATH ALI S/O KHAJA VIRASATH ALI
AGE:19 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT
7. MAHEEN KAUSER D/O ABDUL SALAM
AGE:19 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT
8. PRATTI NAGA SAI ANEESHA D/O PRATTI RAMA RAO
AGE:18 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT
9. PADAKANTI SHIRISHA D/O PADAKANTI BALRAJU
AGE:19 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT
10 . VEGGALAM PRAVALLIKA D/O VEGGALAM
RAVINDRA CHARY
AGE:19 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT
11 . AASHISH S/O RAJIV PALL
AGE:20 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT
12 . P.MANSI REDDY D/O P.V.CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY
AGE:19 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT
13 . Y.NIKITHA REDDY D/O Y.REDDAPPA REDDY
AGE:18 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT
14 . KULKARNI JAGANNATH S/O PRADEEP
AGE:19 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT
15 . KATRAGADDA SUSMITHA
D/O KATRAGADDA RAMA RAO
AGE:20 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT
16 . SOHAIL AHMED KHAN
S/O. MD.ABDUL WAHEED KHAN
6
AGE:20 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT
17 . SHAIK AYESHA
D/O SHAIK ABDUL KHAYYUM
AGE:20 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT
18 . PRIYADARSHINI MATH
D/O RAJASHEKAR B MATH
AGE:19 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT
19 . SHIVANI MADANKAR D/O RAJKUMAR MADANKAR
AGE:20 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT
20 . KOPPU APOORVA D/O KOPPU LAKSHMAIAH
AGE:21 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT
21 . BELLAMKONDA MANOJ KUMAR
S/O BELLAMKONDA RAMAMURTHY
AGE:20 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT
22 . MIRZA YADULLAH BAIG
S/O MIRZA RAFATULLAH BAIG
AGE:18 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT
ALL ARE R/O C/O S.B.PATIL DENTAL COLLEGE &
HOSPITAL BIDAR - 585 102
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI R.S. KADGANCHI, ADVOCATE)
And:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
MEDICAL EDUCATION
MINISTER OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560001
2. THE RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH
SCIENCES, 4TH T-BLOCK JAYNAGAR
7
BANGALORE-560041
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR
3. THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA
IWAN-E-GALIB MARG, KOTLA ROAD,
NEW DELHI-110002
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ARCHANA P. TIWARI, AGA FOR R1;
SRI AMEET KUMAR DEDHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI S.S. ASPALLI, ASGI, FOR R3)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,
PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN
THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ENDORSEMENT IN RESPECT OF NON-APPROVED
STUDENTS DATED 23.04.2016 IN NO.AC2-
ADM/BDS/2015-16/D023 VIDE ANNEXURE 'C' AND
IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED NIL IN
NO.RGUVV/ADM/BDS/D040/2014-15 VIDE ANNEXURE
'C1' IN NOT APPROVING THE NAMES OF THE PETITIONERS
NO.2 TO 22, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND
CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO
APPROVE THE NAMES OF THE PETITIONER NO.2 TO 22
FOR BDS COURSE FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2015-16, &
ETC.
IN W.P.NOS.202180/2016 & 202192-2211/2016:
BETWEEN:
1. HYDERABAD KARNATAKA DEVELOPMENT
EDUCATION TRUST'S DENTAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL
AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE, HUMNABAD
DIST:BIDAR
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL
8
2. DEVAGUDI NAGA YATHI RAJA KARTHIK
AGE:20 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT
3. ESHWARI D/O RAMAKANTH K.
AGE:19 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT
4. KONDEPATI MOUNISHA D/O VENU
AGE:21 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT
5. MOHAMMED ALI ABDUL RAHEMAN
S/O DR.AHMED SHAJI AKBAR
AGE:21 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT
6. MOHAMMED MUKARRAM MUNEER AHMED
S/O MOHAMMED ARIF AHMED
AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT
7. MOHAMMED ADIL SHOEB
S/O MOHAMMED MAHETAB ALI
AGE:21 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT
8. MUPATKAL KAVYASHREE S/O M.KEDARNATH
AGE:20 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT
9. NABEELA MUHAMMED NAJMUDDIN
D/O MD.NAJAMUDDIN
AGE:21 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT
10 . NAZIA TANVEER D/O MIRZA AJMATULLA BAIG
AGE:20 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT
11 . NITYA ATLA D/O MR.JANARDHAN ATLA
AGE:21 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT
12 . PATIL PRIYA SUBHASH D/O SUBHASH
AGE:20 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT
13 . PRIYANKA GHOSH D/O TUN TUN GHOSH
AGE:19 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT
9
14 . SAQLAIN KHAN S/O MOHAMMED FEROZ KHAN
AGE:20 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT
15 . SIDHARTH RAVI PILLAI S/O G.RAVINDRAN PIILAI
AGE:21 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT
16 . SUNKARA CHANDAN D/O S.KRISHNAKAR
AGE:20 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT
17 . THATI PARTHI VINUTHANA REDDY
D/O T.DEVANDHAR REDDY
AGE:19 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT
18 . THOMMANDRI LAHARI
D/O. T.MADHARA RAO LAHA T.
AGE:19 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT
19 . YERRA SAMANVITHA D/O. Y.NAGARAJU
AGE:21 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT
20 . MANJUNATH S/O MR.SHIVAKUMAR
AGE:20 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT
21 . MOHAMMED AZMAL SHAREEF
S/O MD. AHMED SHAREEF
AGE:21 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT
ALL ARE R/O C/O HYDERABAD KARNATAKA
DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION TRUST'S DENTAL
COLLEGE HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE,
HUMNABAD DIST:BIDAR.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI R.S. KADAGANCHI, ADVOCATE)
10
And:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
MEDICAL EDUCATION MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND
FAMILY WELFARE
VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
2. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE
4TH 'T' BLOCK , JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-560041
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR
3. THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA
IWAN-E-GALIB MARG, KOTLA ROAD
NEW DELHI-110002
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ARCHANA P. TIWARI, AGA FOR R1& R3;
SRI AMEET KUMAR DEDHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,
PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR
ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING, THE IMPUGNED
ENDORSEMENT DATED 31.03.2016 IN
NO.AC2/ADM/BDS/2015-16/D038 UNDER ANNEXURE G
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND ETC.
In W.P.Nos.202267-202271/2016:
11
Between:
1. HYDERABAD KARNATAKA DEVELOPMENT
EDUCATION TRUST'S DENTAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL
AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE, HUMNABAD,
DIST.BIDAR, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL
2. MOHAMMED ASIF
S/O MOHAMMED YOUSUF KHAMARUNNISA
AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT,
3. MANJUNATH S/O SHIVKUMAR VIJAYALAXMI
AGE:19 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT,
ALL ARE R/O C/O HYDERABAD KARNATAKA
DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION TRUST'S DENTAL
COLLEGE HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH INSTITUE,
HUMNABAD DIST.BIDAR.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI R.S. KADAHANCHI, ADVOCATE)
And:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA MEDICAL EDUCATION
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR
2. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH
SCIENCE, 4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE - 560041.
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR
3. THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA
IWAN-E-GALIB MARG, KOTLA ROAD
12
NEW DELHI-110002.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ARCHANA P. TIWARI, AGA FOR R1 & R3;
SRI AMEET KUMAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,
PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR
ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED
ENDORSEMENT DATED 31.03.2016 & 20.06.2016 IN
NO.AC2/ADM/BDS/2015-16/D038 UNDER ANNEXURE-G
& Q ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. B) ISSUE A WRIT
OF MANDAMUS OF ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT,
ORDER OR DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS
TO DECLARE THAT, THE ADMISSIONS GRANTED TO THE
PETITIONERS NO.2 & 3 ARE VALID AND THAT THEY ARE
ENTITLED TO CONTINUATION OF THEIR STUDIES BY
GRANT OF APPROVAL OF THEIR ADMISSIONS.
IN W.P.NOS.30156-30181/2016:
BETWEEN:
1. S NIJALINGAPPA INSTITUTE OF DENTAL SCIENCES
& RESEARCH, SEDAM ROAD
KALABURGI-585105
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL
2. A RUPA VANI D/O PANDURANGA VITTAL BOSE
AGE 18 YEARS
13
OCC:STUDENT
3. BUSHRA PARVEEN
D/O MD. MUJAHED ABBAS ALI
AGE 18 YEARS
OCC:STUDENT,
4. C. SUSHMA
D/O C. MURALI,
AGE 18 YEARS,
OCC:STUDENT,
5. CHERLA SMRUTHI
D/O CHERLA ANAND KUMAR,
AGE 20 YEARS,
OCC:STUDENT,
6. KARANKI SAI RAHUL GOUD
S/O KVS PRASAD
AGE 20 YEARS,
OCC:STUDENT
7. CHOPPAKATLA CHITRA RADH
S/O BHASKAR SHARMA
AGE 19 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT,
8. GANDLA LIKITHA
D/O GANDLA BASAWARAJ,
AGE 20 YEARS,
OCC:STUDENT
9. KANAKAM SINDHURA
D/O KANAKAM BALAKRISHNA
AGE 19 YEARS,
OCC:STUDENT
10 . KHAITAN SAKSHI AJAY
D/O AJAY KHAITAN
AGE 19 YEARS,
14
OCC:STUDENT
11 . L BHUSHAN
S/O L NARSING RAO
AGE 19 YEARS
OCC:STUDENT
12 . LAVANYA H J
D/O JAGDEESH H R
AGE 19 YEARS,
OCC:STUDENT
13 . MANUSANI BHAVANA
D/O M.RAMESH,
AGE 19 YEARS,
OCC:STUDENT,
14 . MOHAMMAD KASIF AHSAN
S/O MOHAMMED AHSAN UZZAMA
AGE 20 YEARS,
OCC:STUDENT,
15 . MOHD AAQIB SHOHAIL
S/O MOHD AMJAD PASHA,
AGE 21 YEARS,
OCC:STUDENT,
16 . MOHD ASIF AHMED ATTAR
S/O MOHD IQBAL AHMED ATTAR
AGE 19 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT,
17 . PONNUJU VIKRANTH
S/O P. SOMALINGACHARY,
AGE 20 YEARS,
OCC:STUDENT
18 . PULIMADDI VENKATA SAI KISHORE
S/O PULIMADDI VIJAYA BHASKARA
AGE 19 YEARS,
15
OCC:STUDENT
19 . ROHINI B
D/O BHANUDAS B.
AGE 20 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT
20 . ROHIT CHAWAN
S/O D B CHAWAN,
AGE 18 YEARS,
OCC:STUDENT,
21 . SAKSHI NARENDRA OSWAL
D/O NARENDRA R OSWAL
AGE 19 YEARS,
OCC:STUDENT,
22 . SHAIK MUHAYMIN
S/O SHAIK MAHABOOB BASHA,
AGE 19 YEARS,
OCC:STUDENT,
23 . SHAIK KHIZAR USMAN MUKHTAR
S/O SHAIKH MUKHTAR MOHAMMED USMAN,
AGE 19 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT,
24 . VADDEPALLI SHARMADHA
D/O VADDEPALLI MAHESH,
AGE 19 YEARS,
OCC:STUDENT,
25 . VALAVALA KEERTHANA
D/O VALAVALA SATYANARAYANAA
AGE 19 YEARS,
OCC:STUDENT,
26 . VANDANAPU SRIVATHSAV
S/O VANDANAPUR SRIDHAR,
AGE 19 YEARS
16
OCC:STUDENT,
ALL ARE R/O C/O S. NIJALINGAPPA INSTITUTE OF
DENTAL SCIENCES & RESEARCH COLLEGE SEDAM
ROAD, KALABURGI-585105
... PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. ASHWINI PATIL, ADVOCATE - ABSENT)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
IT'S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
MEDICAL EDUCATION,
MINISTER OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001
2. THE RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH
SCIENCES
4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560041
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR
3. THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA
IWAN-E-GALIB MARG, KOTLA ROAD,
NEW DELHI-110002
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. ARCHANA P. TIWARI, AGA FOR R1 & R3;
SRI SANDEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 - ABSENT)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,
PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT
DATED 25.04.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-C ANNEXURE-D
DATED: 11-25/04/2016 REFUSING TO APPROVE THE
17
NAMES OF THE PETITIONERS NO.2 TO 26 VIDE
ANNEXURE-D ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2, ONLY
IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONERS.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 27.08.2020 COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, KRISHNA S.
DIXIT J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Petitioner-Dental-Colleges and their students are knocking at the doors of writ court grieving against the action of the respondent-Rajeev Gandhi University of Health Sciences (hereafter 'University') in denying approval to the admission to the Dental Course for the academic years in question on the ground that before admitting the merits of these candidates was not adjudged in the Common Entrance Test to be conducted by the Karnataka Examination Authority (hereafter 'KEA'); the respondents after service of notice have entered appearance through their Counsel; the State is represented by learned Additional Government 18 Advocate, the learned Panel Counsel holds brief for the Dental Council of India (hereafter 'DCI') and the University speaks through its Senior Panel Counsel. These petitions are opposed by filing statement of objections.
2. Brief facts of the case:
a) Petitioner-Colleges being affiliated to University have the annual intake capacity of 40 students as approved by the DCI and that they happen to be the constituent members of the Association of Karnataka Un-aided Professional Educational Institutions, is not in dispute; under the Seat Sharing Arrangement, these colleges retain 45% of the seats, the Government takes 35% of the seats and the remaining 20% of the seats are earmarked for NRI & un-allotted category students; the expression "Government Seats"
as given under Section 2(i) of the Karnataka Professional Educational Institution (Regulation of 19 Admission and Determination of Fee) Act, 2006 (hereafter '2006 Act') as amended by Karnataka Act No.39 of 2015 (hereafter 'Amendment Act') inter alia includes all the seats in Government Colleges, University constituent colleges and such number of seats in Private Aided Professional Educational Institutions as may be notified by the State Government; thus all seats that are not 'Government Seats' fall within the expression 'Institutional Seats'.
b) The COMED-K conducts the Admission Test for the candidates falling under the quota of 'Institutional Seats' excluding the aforesaid 20%, and the KEA conducts the CET for the candidates falling under the quota of 'Government Seats'; the Colleges have their own procedure for regulating admission of the candidates falling under the 20% Quota; the cases at our hands relate to admission of candidates that fall under the unexhausted quota of Government Seats, is 20 not in dispute. For the academic years in question, the Government did not exhaust the 'Government Seats' since only a few seats on the basis of CET merit list were allotted to the private institutions like the petitioner-Colleges, the rest having not been; however, the admission of candidates to these remaining seats was done by the Colleges sans CET; the University refused to grant approval to these admissions stating that the assessment of comparative merits by CET is a condition precedent for admission.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Colleges & students argues that: there is no legal requirement of CET as a pre-condition for the admission of candidates of unexhausted quota of Government Seats; in any circumstance, such a pre- condition if at all is obtaining in law, paled into insignificance once the comparative merits of these candidates were otherwise assessed by the Colleges by 21 adopting a fair & reasonable method; in the alternative, he submits that there being no fault attributable to the petitioner-students, they cannot be scape-goated for the arguable lapse of petitioner-Colleges especially when much water has flowed under the bridges after they gained entry to the course losing long time and incurring huge expenses; he cites certain rulings in support of these submissions.
4. Learned AGA appearing for the State & KEA and the learned Panel Advocates appearing for the University & DCI vehemently repelled the submissions put forth on behalf of petitioners contending that there is no warrant for treating the candidates of unexhausted quota of Government Seats as of Management Quota, prescription of CET being mandatory & not compromisable; matter is no longer res integra, this Court and the Apex Court having not countenanced similar stand of the Institutions of the 22 kind, even in pari materia legal regime concerning MBBS Course; they rely upon certain rulings in support of these contentions.
5. All these cases having similar fact matrix and involving common questions of law, are taken up for final hearing & disposal, as suggested at the Bar. We have perused the petition papers and heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties; we have also duly adverted to the relevant rulings cited; in the light of rival submissions, the following questions fall for our consideration:
i. Whether the petitioner-Colleges are justified in admitting to the BDS Course, the candidates in unexhausted quota of Government Seats without their comparative merits being assessed by CET...?
ii. Whether the University to which these Colleges are affiliated, is justified in denying approval to the subject admissions...? and iii. Whether the petitioner-students who have given up equity while securing the interim relief are entitled to the grant of any equitable relief in writ jurisdiction...?23
6. Rule position as to admission to Dental Courses:
(a) The Dental Council of India, a premier national body established under the provisions of the Dentists Act, 1948 has promulgated the "Dental Council of India Revised BDS Course Regulations, 2007" (hereafter '2007 Regulations') vide Notification dated 25.07.2007 which have come into force with effect from 10.09.2007 by virtue of Gazette publication; Regulation-II states "the selection of students to Dental College shall be based solely on merit of the candidate..."; it also prescribes the criteria for determining the merit; this aspect of the matter has been extensively considered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP 27342-27345/2015 & connected matters between KVG Dental College & Hospital vs. State of Karnataka and others decided on 02.07.2015 against the institutions who had ventilated their grievance against non-approval of admissions to BDS Course for the want of CET; 24
(b) The aforesaid decision which is stated to be in appeal before Bengaluru Bench discusses inter alia the Consensual Agreement concluded between the Association of Colleges and the State Government, as well; it is relevant to reproduce paragraphs-11 & 12 of the same:
"11. In my opinion, the University is right in disapproving admissions of the nine students on the ground that their rankings in competitive entrance examination were not furnished. As stated above, clause(2) of Regulation II is applicable to Dental colleges in Karnataka, and therefore, a ranking in competitive entrance examination is a must as per Regulation (II(5)(ii) for admission to Dental course (BDS) in Karnataka. In other words, a rank in competitive entrance examination is a condition precedent to apply for admission to BDS course in any Dental college in Karnataka.
12. In view of the above, the writ petitions are devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed.
At this stage, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the University communicated its decision belatedly i.e. during February and March 2015, by which time, the nine students had almost completed I year of the B.D.S. Course, while, as per the Regulations, the University should have communicated its decision before 31st 25 December, 2014. This submission will not advance the case of the petitioners as the petitioner-colleges should not have admitted the students contrary to the Regulation extracted above. At any rate, this can't be a ground to direct approval of the clearly illegal admissions made by the petitioner-colleges in violation of the Revised BDS Course Regulations, 2007 and the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Priya Gupta's case."
(c) The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a Co-ordinate Bench decision dated 21.11.2014 in BVV Sangha's Case in W.P.Nos.105772-105833/2014 (EDN) to contend that in identical set of facts the denial of approval by the University having been set at naught, a direction has been issued for granting approval; this decision has already been considered by the learned Single Judge in KVG Dental College Case, supra who has rightly held that it does not lay down any binding rule of conduct; in other words, the said judgment does not have precedential value since at para-6 it specifically confines the grant of relief "only in respect of 26 Dental Course for the year 2013-14 of the first petitioner- college"; thus the judgment is 'fact & party-specific';
(d) It also needs to be noticed that the Co-ordinate Bench referred to another decision of a learned Single Judge, dated 03.04.2014 in Miss Srinija Dasari & Ors. vs. University & Ors. in W.P.51397-938/2013 & connected matters as well, which is heavily pressed into service by the petitioners herein for the proposition that "if the available seats are more than the candidates who are otherwise eligible for admission, the holding of an entrance test to assess their inter se merit would be unnecessary and meaningless"; we do not subscribe to that view for more than one reason: if that view were to be the correct legal position universally applicable to BDS admissions for all the academic years, the Co- ordinate Bench would have stated it in so many words, which it has consciously not; on the contrary, it restricted the application of its decision to the 27 admissions of the year 2013-14 as already mentioned above and that too for the students of the petitioner- college therein; this apart, a perusal of the Co-ordinate Bench judgment shows that the view taken therein is laced with a kind of concession from the respondent side; the questions which we have framed above, having not been fully debated.
(e) The reliance on the Co-ordinate Bench Judgment dated 11.12.2018 in W.P.Nos.107264- 7266/2017 (EDN.MED.) in Maratha Mandal's Nathijirao Halgekar Institute Case again does not come to the aid of the petitioners; this case comprised of admissions for the academic year 2016-17 that were treated under provisions of 10-D and 10-C newly added by the Presidential Ordinance dated 24.05.2016 which amended the Dentists Act, 1948, whereby the concept of NEET was brought in; theses provisions and the transition caused by them were the fulcrum of the said judgment; the said provisions do not govern the case of 28 the petitioners which are unrelated to the new concept; more than a century ago Lord Halsbury in Quinn vs. Leathem, 1901 AC 495 ruled that a case is an authority only for the proposition that it lays down, and not for all that, that follows from what is laid down; applying this principle relating to doctrine of precedent, the ratio arguably laid down in the said judgment does not advance the case of the petitioners.
(f) The learned Panel Counsel for the University is more than justified in notifying to this Court another Co-ordinate Bench judgment dated 29.11.2019 in Hyderabad Karnataka Development Education Trust's Dental College Case in W.P.Nos.202721 & 202779-786/2019 whose facts perfectly match those of these cases at hands; the Bench has adverted to the decision in BVV Sangha's Case, supra, as well; what it observed at paragraph-12 being very pertinent, is reproduced below:
29
"12. The facts and circumstances clearly show that there is flagrant violation of the rules and procedure framed in regulating admissions to medical and dental colleges. The very fact that the colleges have joined hands with the students shows that the colleges are also involved in violating rules and procedure. The conduct of the management of the colleges must be condemned and every college must be penalized for making admissions of ineligible students in violation of the rules and procedure. Therefore we find no merits in these writ petitions and proceed to pass the following: ... Writ petitions are dismissed. Every dental college which is a petitioner in these writ petitions is subjected to cost of Rs.50,000/- payable to the Chief Minister's Flood Relief Fund (Natural Calamity)."
7. 2015 Amendment to 2006 Act & the Consensual Agreements of Seat Sharing concluded between the Colleges and the State Government:
(a) The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his case pressed into service the terms of Consensual Agreements entered into by & between the Association of Private Professional Educational Institutions and the State Government pursuant to Section 4A of 2006 Act; this new provision is introduced by amendment vide Karnataka Act No.39 of 2015 w.e.f. 30
11.09.2015; true it is that, the amendment arguably contemplates certain concessions in the matter of seat sharing and payment of fees; the learned counsel despite strenuous argument could not point out from the text of this new section or from the terms of the Consensual Agreements that the petitioner-Colleges were given authority to admit students dispensing with the conditions of admission mandatorily prescribed by 2007 Regulations; it cannot be that way, either;
(b) There is no dispute that the admission to Dental Courses throughout the country is regulated by the DCI Act & the 2007 Regulations promulgated thereunder which together constitute a 'central law' that occupies the legislative field; therefore the 'State law' namely, 2006 Act as amended by 2015 Act & the Consensual Agreements referable to newly added section 4A, cannot by any stretch of imagination be construed to relax the requirement of admission norms 31 that are mandatorily prescribed by the central law; thus, the petitioners' contention cannot be countenanced without causing much violence to the federal scheme of distribution of legislative powers enacted in Chapter-1 of Part-XI of the Constitution of India, since the State law (i.e., 2006 Act or the amendment Act) is not shown to have been made with the Assent of the President as contemplated under Article 254 of the Constitution, when the matter admittedly falls in the Concurrent List; an argument to the contrary amounts to giving primacy to the State law over the central law; the legal position as to doctrine of occupied field having been well settled by a long line of decisions, we have refrained from burdening this judgment with unnecessary discussion in this regard; that being so, suffice it to say that, we answer the above question No.1 in the negative.
32
8. Government letter dated 31.01.2020 and the claim for approval of admissions:
a) The learned counsel for the petitioners drew our attention to the letter No.AaKuka/331/RGU/2018 (Part-I) dated 31.01.2020 and contended that certain concessions have been extended with a direction for regularizing the admissions of similarly placed students like the petitioners herein and that petitioners too need to be treated alike; he also points out a Division Bench judgment dated 24.06.2020 in the case of HYDERABAD KARNATAKA DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION TRUST Vs. STATE & OTHERS in W.P.Nos.225764-5768/2020 & connected matters wherein liberty is reserved to the said college and some students "to approach the authorities concerned including respondent No.3" i.e., the University in the light of this letter which reads as under:
"¸ÀASÉå: DPÀÄPÀ 331 DgïfAiÀÄÄ 2018 (¨sÁ-1) PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¸ÀaªÁ®AiÀÄ, §ºÀĪÀĺÀrUÀ¼À PÀlÖqÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ:31-01-2020 EªÀjAzÀ:
¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¥ÀgÀ ªÀÄÄRå PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðUÀ¼ÀÄ, 33 ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ ²PÀët E¯ÁSÉ, §ºÀĪÀĺÀrUÀ¼À PÀlÖqÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-560001.
EªÀjUÉ:
1) ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ ±ÀPÀët ¤zÉÃð±À£Á®AiÀÄ, D£ÀAzÀgÁªï ªÀÈvÀÛ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ.
2) jf¸ÁÖçgï, gÁfêï UÁA¢ü DgÉÆÃUÀå «eÁÕ£ÀUÀ¼À «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-560 001.
ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉ, «µÀAiÀÄ: 2018-19£Éà ¸Á°£À ¸ÁßvÀPÀ zÀAvÀ ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ PÉÆøÀðUÀ½UÉ ¥ÀæªÉñÀ ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀ «zÁåyðUÀ¼À ¥ÀæªÉñÁÀwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß C£ÀĪÉÆâ¸ÀĪÀ ºÁUÀÆ ¥sÀ°vÁA±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀæPÀn¸ÀĪÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ.
G¯ÉèÃR: 1. EzÉà ¸ÀªÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå ¥ÀvÀæ ¢£ÁAPÀ:19.06.2019
2. EzÉà ¸ÀªÀi ¸ÀASÉå ¥ÀvæÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:04.12.2019. ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, G¯ÉèÃTvÀ ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À PÀqÉUÉ UÀªÀÄ£À ¸É¼ÉAiÀįÁVzÉ. CzÀgÀ£ÀßAiÀÄ CzÉà jÃw G¯ÉèÃR(1)gÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è 151 zÀAvÀ «zÁåyðUÀ½UÉ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAvÀ ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ ¥ÀjµÀwÛ£À C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£É ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄĪÀ µÀgÀwÛUÉƼÀ¥ÀlÄÖ C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£É ¤Ãr, ªÉÆzÀ®£Éà ªÀµÀðzÀ ¥ÀjÃPÉëUÀ½UÉ ºÁdgÁUÀ®Ä C£ÀĪÀÄw ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVvÀÄÛ. G¯ÉèÃR (2)gÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è ¸ÀzÀj «zÁåyðUÀ¼À ¥ÀjÃPÁë ¥sÀ°vÁA±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀæPÀn¸À®Ä C£ÀĪÀÄw ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVvÀÄÛ.
2018-19 £Éà ¸Á°£À°è ªÀiÁ¥ï C¥ï gËAqï£À vÀgÀĪÁAiÀÄ ««zsÀ SÁ¸ÀV zÀAvÀ ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ PÁ¯ÉÃdÄUÀ¼À°è ¸ÁßvÀPÀ zÀAvÀ ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ PÉÆùðUÉ 195 «zÁåyðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß MAzÀÄ ¨ÁjAiÀÄ PÀæªÀÄzÀAvÉ C£ÀĪÉÆâ¹zÉ ºÁUÀÆ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAvÀ ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ ¥ÀjµÀvïUÉ C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£ÉUÁV ¸À°è¸À®Ä C£ÀĪÀÄw ¤ÃrzÉ JAzÀÄ w½AiÀÄ¥Àr¹zÉ. F C£ÀĪÀÄwAiÀÄÄ ªÉÄð£ÀAvÉ zÁR¯ÁVgÀĪÀ «zÁåyðUÀ¼ÀÄ ¤Ãmï ¥ÀjÃPÉë CºÀðgÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀÄ£Àgï RavÀ¥Àr¹PÉƼÀÄîªÀ µÀgÀwÛUÉƼÀ¥ÀnÖzÉ. FUÁUÀ¯Éà ¥ÀjÃPÉëAiÀÄ ¥sÀ°vÁA±À ¥ÀæPÀn¹gÀĪÀ «zÁåyðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ¥Àr¹, G½PÉ C¨sÁå¸À ¤gÀvÀ 35 «zÁåyðUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÀæªÉñÁw ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄĪÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è ¤Ãmï CºÀðvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß zÀÈqÀ¥Àr¹PÉƼÀÄîªÀ µÀgÀwÛUÉ M¼À¥ÀlÄÖ ¥ÀjÃPÁë ¥sÀ°vÁA±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀæPÀn¸À®Ä ¸ÀºÀ C£ÀĪÀÄw ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ w½¸À®Ä ¤zÉÃð²vÀ£ÁVzÉÝãÉ.
ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀÄ, E£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÉ F jÃw DUÀzÀAvÉ JZÀÑjPÉ ªÀ»¸ÀĪÀAvÉ E®è¢zÀÝ°è, ¸ÀzÀj PÁ¯ÉÃdÄUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÝ PÀpt PÀæªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÊUÉƼÀî¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÉAzÀÄ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ PÁ¯ÉÃdÄUÀ½UÉ w½¸ÀĪÀAvÉ vÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß PÉÆÃgÀ®Ä ¤zÉÃð²¸À®ànÖzÉÝãÉ. 34
¤ªÀÄä £ÀA§ÄUÉAiÀÄ, (©.«.ªÀiÁgÀÄw ¥Àæ¸À£Àß) ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¢üãÀ PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð-1 ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ ²PÀët E¯ÁSÉ.''
b) A bare perusal of the letter makes it clear that it is not a Government Order purportedly issued under the provisions of any law; it is not expressed as having been made on the order of and in the name of the Governor of Karnataka which usually the Government Orders of the kind are made; it is written by the Deputy Secretary-I namely, B.V. Maruti Prasanna to the Director, Directorate of Medical Education and to the Registrar of RGUHS; it is in the nature of inter departmental communication; it specifically mentions about 2018-19 admissions to Dental Course, is true; however it is not intended to create any justiciable rights in favour of the petitioners; it is ununderstandable as to how such a letter which is not worth the paper it is written on, can be pressed into service for claiming relief in writ jurisdiction; it is 35 pertinent to reproduce what the Co-ordinate Bench at para-6 after seeing the letter observed:
"6. Be that as it may. The relief as sought for in the instant petitions by the petitioners has already been considered by the Coordinate Bench and it has been rejected. If the instant petitions are appreciated it would virtually amount to this Bench sitting in review over the order of the Coordinate Bench."
(c) True it is that, the Bench permitted the litigants therein to approach inter alia the respondent- University herein; but no sustenance can be drawn by placing reliance on such grant of liberty as rightly contended by its Panel Counsel; compliance with the mandatory conditions of admission cannot be diluted and muchless be dispensed with, on the basis of letters of the kind; the learned AGA is not in a position to justify issuance of such a letter; this is a serious matter which needs to be probed into by the Government; this court assumes that it could be a product of some quid pro quo, whoever being the criminal beneficiary thereof; 36 more is not necessary to specify and less is insufficient to leave it unsaid.
9. Denial of approval to the admissions & its legality:
Regardless of quality and content of the impugned orders whereby the University has declined to accord approval to the admissions in question, we do not find any legal or factual infirmity warranting indulgence of writ court for setting the same at naught; they perfectly accord with the legal position as repeatedly declared by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court and of this Court; learned counsel for the respondents are right in submitting that the matter is no longer res integra, in view of the long settled legal position which is discussed above; thus, no fault can be laid at the threshold of the University; we have no option than to answer the question No.2 framed above in the affirmative, subject to what is stated in the discussion infra founded on the doctrine of equity which the writ courts ordinarily follow. 37
10. As to petitioners' counsel's request for deferring the hearing of these cases:
(a) The insistence of learned counsel for the petitioners for deferring the decision in these cases on the ground that the colleges are agitating before the Syndicate of the University seeking some reprieve in the light of aforementioned Government letter dated 31.01.2020 does not make any sense, the said letter having already been examined by a Co-ordinate Bench of this court; we are also of the view that no rights or privileges emerge from this letter and it cannot make a dent to the settled legal position; this contention of the counsel as it comes after the conclusion of hearing is unconscionable; it hardly needs to be stated that the respondent-University cannot turn around and take a fresh decision in breach of law and contrary to the vehement stand consistently taken before us; 38
(b) The insistence of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the identical questions are being debated before the Apex Court hardly has any justification for delaying the hearing & disposal of these cases, especially when the fate of a large number of hapless students is under the hanging sword of Damocles, to the enormous anxiety of their parents; no direction nor indication by the Apex Court warranting deferment of disposal of these matters is pointed out to us; in matters relating to professional courses, judicial delay has its own implications, needs no demonstration; this apart, the request for deferring the hearing is made when the long hearing of the matter was half way through and after sensing the likely outcome of these proceedings; thus the request lacks in bonafides, to say the least; therefore the request is declined. 39
11. As to penalty to the recalcitrant colleges and reprieve to the innocent students:
a) The law relating to prescription of mandatory admission norms has been time and again stated by the Apex Court and this court in a series of decisions which have been duly considered in KVG Dental College Case and other cases, supra; instead of scrupulously adhering to the letter & spirit of law, the petitioner-
Colleges have taken a tangent route in gross violence to the law of the land; their conduct exhibits a recalcitrant attitude i.e. 'come what may, we will neither obey the rule of law nor the rulings of the highest court of the country'; this offends law, reason and justice to say the least; one of the ways to ensure obedience to law is to make it's law-violation an ill-bargain; petitioner- Colleges have caused a great deal of anxiety to the innocent students and obviously to their parents too; a time has come to tell that, howsoever high you may be, law is above you; law-breaking should be proved to be 40 counter-productive and terribly punitive; we are of the considered opinion that each of the petitioner-Colleges should be levied with an exemplary cost of Rs.10,00,000/- per student, and this amount should go to the State Calamity Relief Fund.
b) A Writ Court cannot be oblivious to the fact that many of the petitioner-students have already completed the course and some are completing it before long; if their admissions at this advanced stage are not approved, enormous injustice would be caused to them; we have no reason to assume that these students or their guardians were hand in glove with the erring management of the petitioner-Colleges, whilst securing admission to the course in question; there is a blatant violation of law perpetrated by the management of the petitioner-colleges is unimpeachably true and therefore they are liable to be visited with exemplary costs as discussed above; however this court exercising 41 constitutional jurisdiction has to come to the rescue of these gullible students and ensure that no prejudice is caused especially to these young minds emerging from the campus to serve the dental needs of society; notwithstanding the fact that they have secured interim relief on the condition of not pleading equity, this court has to relieve them of the difficulty of not having a recognized educational qualification because of the fault of others on whom they had no control; therefore, we answer the question No.3 in the Affirmative.
(c) The students happen to be the beneficiaries of violation of law of course, committed by the colleges, also cannot be lost sight of; justice of the case echoes that they cannot be permitted to go completely free, regardless of their arguable guiltlessness; they need to render community service as a consideration for retaining the benefit of admission to the course, which the colleges have done in a manifest breach of law; their 42 counsel too cottoned with our view that they should render service for a short period and on stipend; we are of the considered opinion that one year rural service will mete out justice to all; this view of ours is consistent with the cognate legislative measure in the State namely, the enacting of Karnataka Compulsory Service Training by Candidates Completed Medical Courses Act, 2015; the authorities of the State need to take all appropriate steps to ensure the compliance with the direction for community service keeping in view the decisions of this court in Dr. Swamy Manjunath & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. 2019 (2) Kar. L.J. 506 and M.S. Bushra Abdul Aleem vs. Govt. of Karnataka and others 2019 (4) KCCR 3482; if necessary, the Government can lay down binding guidelines in this regard.
12. At the fag end of the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that one of the 43 students ie petitioner No.2 namely, Mr.Mohammed Asif S/o Mohammed Yousuf Khamarunnisa in W.P.Nos.202267-2271/2016 has been granted admission by the petitioner-College on the basis of his merit assessed in CET and that he was mistakenly arrayed as a party; he further submits that his claim for approval for admission needs to be favoured since the stated ground for non-approval is non-existent so far as this petitioner is concerned; the respondents are not in a position to say anything on this; suffice it to state that, if the credentials of this petitioner are found to be true, then there would be no impediment for granting approval to his admission.
13. The admission of petitioner No.2 namely, Mr.Mohammed Asif S/o Mohammed Yousuf Khamarunnisa in WP No.202267-2271/2016 to the Dental Course for the academic years in question allegedly having been admitted after CET shall be considered for approval by the respondent-University within two months 44 if his asserted credentials are found correct after due verification and that in his case there shall be no requirement of any undertaking being taken for rendering rural service. These observations will apply to any other candidate whose merit has been assessed under CET.
14. In the above circumstances, we make the following:
ORDER These writ petitions are partly and conditionally favoured:
i. A writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned orders whereby the respondent-University has denied approval to the admission of petitioner- students to the Dental Course for the academic years in question;
ii. A writ of Mandamus issues to the respondent- University to consider and accord ex post facto approval to the said admissions for the academic 45 years in question within two months after petitioner- students file a duly stamped affidavit before this court undertaking to render one year rural service in Karnataka and also produce a certified copy thereof before both the University and the State Government;
iii. The respondent-Government shall take all appropriate steps as are necessary for enforcing the undertaking to be given by the petitioner-students for rendering one year rural service keeping in view the observations made herein above, after their graduation and enrollment, in accordance with the guidelines that may be laid down in this regard; iv. The petitioner-Colleges are directed to deposit with the Registry of this Court within two months a cost of Rs.10,00,000/- (ten lakh rupees) only, per student admitted under unexhausted quota of Government Seats; the delay in payment of costs shall attract a penal interest at 2% per month; after 46 such deposit being made, the Registry shall transmit the same to the Chief Minister's Calamity/Covid Relief Fund forthwith; and v. The Additional Registrar General of Kalaburagi Bench shall institute contempt proceedings against the petitioner-Colleges if they fail to pay the costs as directed above, at the expenses of the contemnors.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE BL/LG/swk