Karnataka High Court
Vinoda Veerashettar S/O Kalakappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 December, 2012
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
Bench: Huluvadi G Ramesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 4th day of December, 2012
Before
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH
Writ Petitions 25771 - 781 / 2011 c/w 26226 / 2011 c/w 26317 -
336 / 2011 c/w 26660 / 2011 (Edn)
Between
In WPs 25771-781/11
1 Vinoda Veerashettar, 22 yrs
S/o Kalakappa Veerashettar
R/a # 18, 9th Main, 7th Block
4th Phase, Gururaja Layout
BSK III Stage, Bangalore 85
2 Santosh A R, 20yrs
S/o Ruderesh K N
R/a # 18, 9th Main, 7th Block
4th Phase, Gururaj Layout
BSK III Stage, Bangalore 85
3 Vinayak S Ingalagi, 20 yrs
S/o Shankar Ingalagi
R/a # 226, 3rd Cross, 8th Main
4th Phase, 7th block, Gururaj Layout
BSK III Stage, Bangalore
4 Ranganath R V, 22 yrs
S/o R Vishvanath
R/a # 18, 9th Main, 7th Block
2
Gururaj Layout, BSK II Stage
Bangalore
5 Raghavendra Hugar, 22 yrs
S/o Shrishailappa
R/o Chennakeshavaswamy Nilaya
Srinivasa Reddy Building
Teachers Colony, 4th Cross, Anekal Road
Chandapur, Bangalore
6 Raghavendra Hugar, 24 yrs
S/o Devendrappa, R/a C/o D S Hugar
Dallali Vatara, Shahapura Pete
Gadag
7 Raghavendra Chikkorde, 23 yrs
S/o Narayana Rao Chikkorade
R/a # 25, Krishnagiri Colony
Anand Nagar Road, Old Hubli
8 Manjunath Hadimani, 20 yrs
S/o Basavaraja, R/n Sangam Theatre
Bhovi Galli, Sambrama Building
Dharwad
9 Vinoth R, 19yrs
S/o Ramesh B, R/a # 189
23rd Main, BTM II Stage
Bangalore
10 Allwyn Dias, 21 yrs
S/o Peter, R/a Prajna Muroor Road
Siddinbari, Kumta Taluk
U K District
3
11 Pawan Nagarkar, 20 yrs
S/o Muralidhar Nagarkar
R/a ESI Hospital Quarters near Hubli
Tolnaka, Saraswati Pura, Dharwad Petitioners
(By Sri R Nagendra Naik, Adv.)
And
1 State of Karnataka - by its Secretary
Dept. of Higher Education
Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore
2 Director of Technical Education
Dept. of Technical Education
K R Circle, Bangalore
3 Secretary
Karnataka Examination Authority
18th Cross, Malleswaram, Bangalore
4 Regional Director
All India Council for Technical Education
South Western Regional Office
P K Block, Palace Road, Bangalore
5 Principal
Nettur Technical Training Foundation
Peenya II Stage, Bangalore Respondents
(By Sri R Omkumar, AGA for R1-2;
Sri N K Ramesh, Adv. For R3; Sri P S
Dinesh Kumar, Adv. For R4; M/s Kasturi
Associates, Adv. For R5)
4
In WP 26226/2011
Anil Sasalavad, 24 yrs
S/o Basavaraj
R/a # 4, Parvathamma Building
4th Cross, Hebbal, Bangalore Petitioner
(By Sri P G Upanal & H N Kasal, Adv.)
And
1 State of Karnataka - by its Secretary
Dept. of Higher Education
Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore
2 Director of Technical Education
Dept. of Technical Education
K R Circle, Bangalore
3 Executive Director
Karnataka Examinations Authority
18th Cross, Malleswaram, Bangalore
4 All India Council for Technical Education
Indira Gandhi Sports Complex
Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi
5 Nettur Technical Training Foundation (NTTF)
By its Principal
Pune Bangalore Road, Dharwad Respondents
(By Sri R Omkumar, AGA for R1-2; Sri P S
Dinesh Kumar, Adv. For R4; N K Ramesh, Adv.
For R3; M/s Kasturi Assts., for R5)
5
In WP 26317-36/2011
1 Chetan S Siddanaikar, 20 yrs
S/o Shankar K Siddanaikar
R/a Flat # 210, Mahaveer Villow Apartment
Near Betliesda Church, 100 Ft. Road
K S Town, Bangalore
2 Shankara Gouda, 21 yrs
S/o Chavanagoudara
R/a Doddani, Kusugal Post
Hubli Taluk, Dharwad
3 Sanjeevkumar Nagappa Belavagi, 21 yrs
S/o Nagappa S Belavagi
R/a Forest Quarters, Near K C Port
Dharwad
4 Arun Shivappa Gidoji, 19 yrs
S/o Shivappa S Gidoji
R/o Post Waderahatti, Gokal Taluk
Belgaum
5 Chetan M Handigolmath, 20 yrs
S/o Mahanthiah, R/a Hulavi U Channabasaweswara
Complex, II Floor, Butter Market, Hubli
6 Nitesh Itagikar, 20 yrs
S/o Suryakanth Itagikar
R/a Flat # 99, Boxite Road
Sayadrinagar, Belgaum
7 Shankarappa B Devihosur, 20 yrs
R/a Site # 10, 'Banashanari'
Havanur Extension, Hesaraghatta Main Road
6
8 Santhosh Ganagi, 22 yrs
S/o Shankar, R/a # 282, I Stage
5th Main, KHB Colony, Basaveshwarnagar
Bangalore
9 Rohan Kurbetti, 20 yrs
S/o Sanjay Kurbetti
R/a Mahaveer Villow Apartment
Flat # 210, Near BethesdaChurch
100 Ft. Road, K S Town, Bangalore
10 Viresh R Bendrigerimath, 21 yrs
S/o Rudraiah, R/a Post Pattihal K B
Bailhongal Taluk, Belgaum
11 Ravi S Javali S/o Somashekar Javali
R/a # 4, Ramalingareddy Building
Near Vishwanatha Temple Road
B Channasandra, Bangalore
12 Savio L D'Souza, 22 yrs
Lawrence D'Souza, R/a # 4
Ramalingareddy Building
Near Vishwanath Temple Road
B Channasandra, Bangalore 47
13 Kiran Deepak Matade, 21 yrs
S/o Deepak Matade, R/a EWS 145
6th Cross, Navanagar, Hubli
14 Sharad Patil, 20 yrs
S/o Patreppagoud M Patil
R/a D-17, 7th Main, 5th Cross
KPTCL Officers Colony, II Stage
HAL, Indiranagar, Bangalore
7
15 Abhinary Joshi, 20 yrs
S/o Gurunat Joshi, R/o Flat # 71/D2
MCL Road, Hubli
16 Shivarajakumar Gonal, 19yrs
S/o Malleshappa Gonal
R/a Unchagi Post, Hubli Taluk
Dharwad
17 Gurulingayya Nagayya Math, 20 yrs
S/o Nagayya C Math
R/a Sector # 55, House # 78
Navanagar, Bagalkote
18 Sharad pattnashetty, 20 yrs
Vishwanth Pattanashetty
R/a # 953, II Floor, 16th Main
8th Cross, BTM Layout, II Stage
Bangalore
19 Udayakumar YT Ichangi, 19 yrs
S/o Yallappa, R/a # 953, II Floor
16th Main, 8th Cross, BTM Layout
II Stage, Bangalore
20 Jacob Tejaswi, 24 yrs
S/o Harry Jasmine Jacob
R/o # 72, 5th Block, 5th Stage
Yelahanka New Town
Bangalore Petitioners
(By Sri S V Prakash,ADv.)
And
1 State of Karnataka - by its Prl. Secretary
8
Dept. of Higher Education
Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore
2 Director of Technical Education
Dept. of Technical Education
Bangalore
3 Secretary
Karnataka Examination Authority
CET Cell, 18th Cross, Malleshwaram
Bangalore
4 Principal
Nettur Technical Training Foundation
Peenya II Stage, Bangalore
5 All India Council for Technical Education
Palace Road, Bangalore
By its Regional Director Respondents
(By Sri R Omkumar, AGA for R1-2;
Sri N K Ramesh, Adv. For R3; Mr P S
Dinesh Kumar, Adv. For R4; M/s Kasturi
Assts. For R4)
In WP 26660/2011
Sri Manjunath S Koparde, 22 yrs
S/o Shamasundra K Koparde
C/o Praddep Hendre, II Main
3rd Cross, Kalyan Nagar
Near Nagarbhavi Circle, Bangalore Petitioner
(By Sri N R Naik, Adv.)
9
And
1 State of Karnataka - by its Secretary
Education Department
Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore
2 Director
Dept. of Technical Education
K R Circle, Bangalore
3 Karnataka Examination Authority
18th Cross, Malleshwaram
Bangalore Respondents
(By Sri R Omkumar, AGA for R1,2;
Sri P S Dinesh Kumar, Adv. For R4;
M/s Kasturi Assts., Adv. For R5)
Writ Petitions are filed under Art.226/227 of the Constitution praying
to direct 2nd respondent to permit petitioners to participate in the seat
selection process, etc. and to not insist for eligibility certificate from NTTF
students who have passed before 2009-10 as the courses are approved by
AICTE, etc.
Petitions coming on for hearing this day, the Court made the
following:
ORDER
Petitioners have sought for a mandamus directing the 2 nd respondent to permit them to participate in the seat selection process to be held for filling up engineering seats under the lateral entrance scheme for Diploma 10 holders in CET 2011 and allot seats as per the marks obtained and their ranking in the CET pursuant to the order of this Court on 14.7.2008 in WP 11035/2007 & connected matters and not to insist for eligibility certificate from NTTF students who have passed before 2009-10 as the courses have been approved by AICTE.
The grievance of the petitioners and the 5 th respondent are common. AICTE framed rules/regulations for engineering degree through lateral entry, by notification dated 13.1.2007 and R 6 relates to Diploma Holders. As per R 6(1), a person who has completed diploma in engineering is eligible to take up the entrance test. The courses conducted by NTTF in Tool & Die Making, Computer Engineering and Mechatronics are approved by the AICTE. As such, there is no requirement in law to get equivalence status by any other authority. The courses are recognised by the AICTE and the same is final. In spite of the same, petitioners were not permitted to take up the examination conducted by the CET and for seat selection process.
11
Heard the counsel representing the parties.
According to the counsel representing the 5th respondent as well as the petitioners, the IGNOU Act, 1985 under S.5 provides for instruction in such branches of knowledge /technology/vocation/profession and to hold exams and to confer degree/diploma/certificates or other academic distinction. Accordingly, it is contended, S.5 itself contemplates affiliation and the 5th respondent is affiliated and it has been treated as such during 2005-06 and even earlier to that there was approval accorded by the AICTE. It is submitted, the decision taken by the CET in not allowing petitioners who have pursued their course in the IGNOU affiliated institution is against the cardinal principles and the IGNOU Act. It is also submitted, the syllabus prescribed for trade courses is more rigorous than the one prescribed in the usual course by the State and also, pursuant to the order of this Court, several students have been permitted to pursue the course and the certificates issued by the Training Centres which are registered under the IGNOU Act have been recognised. Accordingly, they have sought for allowing the petitions.
12
Per contra, counsel representing the 3rd respondent submitted, as per the AICTE standard, the degree / diploma certificate obtained under the institution established under the IGNOU is not recognised for the purpose of lateral entry and the AICTE has not stated that the course pursued by the petitioners i.e., diploma holders is equivalent to the course prescribed by the AICTE to take lateral entry to engineering course. Accordingly, it is submitted, petitioners have no right to seek for admission to pursue engineering course.
It appears there is an interim order passed by this Court on 20.7.2011. This Court has permitted the petitioners to participate in the CET examination for lateral entry into engineering course. In the order it is also stated, on such announcement of result, if the candidates are found eligible, to allot seats for them. Pursuant to the interim order, most of the students are said to have appeared for CET and if they were found eligible, they would have been allotted a seat in engineering course.
In WP 11035/2007 and connected cases decided on 14.7.2008, it is 13 noted, the All India Council for Technical Education has accorded approval for the year 2003-04 and 2005-06. Thus, it emphasizes the training imparted in the various courses by the 5th respondent and the certificates issued thereon for the students who have pursued the course is equivalent to the course prescribed by the AICTE for engineering course.
It is also seen, for the year 2006-07 and 2007-08 also, matter was pending consideration before the AICTE. By virtue of the interim order, this Court permitted the students to participate in the CET and in the seat selection process and they have pursued the course of their choice. When once the AICTE has considered the certificates issued by the 5 th respondent as equivalent to that of regular diploma certificate course for lateral entry into engineering course and, at the inception, AICTE has recognised the course imparted by the 5th respondent NTTF as equivalent which enables students to appear for CET and further, by virtue of the interim order passed, petitioners have participated in the process of seat selection for engineering course having found them qualified, then necessarily there is no reason to contend that these courses run by the NTTF have not been 14 recognized by the AICTE.
Might be it is a question of seeking extension/recognition every year and whether the permission is required to be secured every year or not could be considered at an appropriate stage. But for the present, by virtue of the interim order, the students have been permitted to participate in the CET process and most of them have been pursuing engineering course of their choice. In that view of the matter, there may not be any impediment to allow the petitions. However, the AICTE has to take note of the rigorous training that is being imparted to students by the 5th respondent.
Petitions are allowed. Interim order is made absolute.
Sd/-
Judge an