Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 706 (KAR)

HEMALATHA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2000-10-25

P.VISHWANATHA SHETTY

body2000
VISHWANATHA SHETTY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners in these petitions have been admitted for study of engineering courses in the various subjects. In these petitions, they have made two prayers. Firstly, they have prayed for quashing the paper publication dated 12th October 2000, issued by the 2nd respondent notifying that 465 seats in three engineering colleges, namely, Marata Mandal Engineering college, Belgaum, Revana siddeshwara Institute of Technology and Shirdi Sai Engineering college, Bangalore are available for allotment by C. E. T. Cell; and secondly, for a direction to the 2nd respondent to carry out counseling for the petitioners in respect of said 465 seats and allot seats in the said three colleges on the basis of comparative merits of the marks secured by the petitioners in the qualifying examination. ( 2 ) SRI K. N. Srinivasa learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that though the petitioners have already admitted to various branches of study in various Engineering Colleges, since they have secured higher percentage of marks, their cases are required to be considered for admission in respect of 465 seats now notified for filling up as per notification Annexure-A and therefore, the 2nd respondent must be directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioners for counselling and if the petitioners are found eligible, they must be allotted seats in the three colleges referred to above, in respect of subjects on the basis of the preference to be indicated by them at the time of counselling Elaborating this submission, the learned counsel pointed out that if such a procedure is not followed and If the seats in question are allowed to be filled up as a casual vacancy, the students who are less meritorious than the petitioners would be entitled to get admission for study of engineering course in respect of various subjects in which normally they would not be entitled for admission in preference to the claim of the petitioners. Therefore, he submits that if the procedure now adopted by the 2nd respondent is allowed, it will result in discrimination in as much as the students who are more meritorious would be denied the right to select the subject of their choice while the students who are less meritorious, will have the benefit of the subject of their choice. Therefore, he submits that the direction sought for by the petitioners in these petitions requires to be granted. Therefore, he submits that the direction sought for by the petitioners in these petitions requires to be granted. ( 3 ) HOWEVER, Sri K. L. Manjunath, learned Counsel appearing forthe 2nd respondent, and Sri Vishwanath, learned Additional government Advocate for the 1st respondent, seriously countered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners They pointed out that since the new three colleges referred to above were recognized by the A. I. C. T. E. after completion of counselling by the 2nd respondent the said seats are treated as casual vacancy. Sri Manjunath submitted that though normally the said seats are not required to be filled up for this academic year by the C. E. T Cell in view of Rule 13 (b) of the C. E. T Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the "rules"), however, in the light of the interim order made by this Court in Writ Petition No. 34146 and 34147/ 1999, directing that the said seats should be treated as casual vacancies, the 2nd respondent took steps to fill up the said seats as casual vacancies He pointed out that such of those students who had appeared for counselling pursuant to notification issued on 12th October, 2000, have already been admitted in the light of the preference given by them and at this stage for any reason their selection is nullified, it would seriously affect their academic career. He further pointed out that since the petitioners are already admitted by the 2nd respondent on the basis of the choice given by them, at the time of counselling and thereafter, they were admitted for study of engineering course in various colleges allotted to them, in view of sub-rule (9) of Rule-18 of the Rules, they are not entitled to seek allotment of seats which are required to be treated as casual vacancy seats. He also pointed out referring to Sub-rule (7) of Rule-18 of the rules that such of those seats surrendered or forfeited by a candidate who had obtained admission after complying with all the formalities shall be treated as casual vacancies. He also pointed out referring to Sub-rule (7) of Rule-18 of the rules that such of those seats surrendered or forfeited by a candidate who had obtained admission after complying with all the formalities shall be treated as casual vacancies. Therefore, he submits that in view of Sub-rule (7) and Sub-rule (9) of Rule 18 of the Rules, the petitioners who have already been selected by the 2nd respondent for study of engineering course, are not eligible for consideration for casual vacancy seats, and therefore, they cannot seek for a direction before this Court to reconsider their case for counselling and admit them for study of engineering course in the subject of their choice in the three colleges referred to above. ( 4 ) IN the light of the rival contentions advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the only question that would arise for consideration in these petitions is as to whether the petitioners who had already been selected by the 2nd respondent for study of engineering course in various subjects of their choice indicated by them at the time of counselling can now seek for a direction before this Court to the 2nd respondent to consider their case in respect of the seats that have subsequently become available ? ( 5 ) THE 1st respondent-State in exercise of the power conferredon it by sub-section (1) of Section-14 of the Karnataka Educational institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee), 1984 has framed Rules called as Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to engineering, Medical and Dental Courses, Rules 1997 (hereinafter referred to as "rules" ). The said Rules provide for procedure required to be followed by the 2nd respondent in the matter of selection of candidates for admission in any of the professional courses like, medical, Dental and Engineering. Sub-clause (b) of Rule-13 of the rules provides that any increase in intake or introduction of new courses in an institution after the notification of the seat matrix for the relevant year shall not be taken into account for the purpose of admission under the Rules. Rule-17 of the Rules provides for an opportunity to the candidate to indicate his/her choice for any one of the professional courses, namely, Engineering, Medical and Dental. Rule-17 of the Rules provides for an opportunity to the candidate to indicate his/her choice for any one of the professional courses, namely, Engineering, Medical and Dental. Rule-18 of the Rules provide for a final stage of selection wherein, the candidate is required to confirm with regard to his/her final choice which the candidate had made on the basis of preliminary round of selection. However, sub-rule (9) of Rule 18 of the Rules provides that the candidates, who have already been selected and received admission orders in any of the disciplines, shall not be eligible to seek allotment of casual vacancy seats, it may be useful to extract sub-rule (b) of Rule-13 and sub-rule (9) of Rule-18 of the Rules, they read as follows:. (a) Sub-rule (b) of Rule-13:"any increase in intake or introduction of new courses in an institution after the notification of the seat matrix for the relevant year shall not be taken into account for the purpose of admission under these rules. "sub-rule (9) of Rule-18:"candidates who have already selected and received admission orders in any of the disciplines shall not be eligible to seek allotment of casual vacancy seats. "from the reading of Clause (b) of Rule-13 of the Rules referred to above, it is clear that any increase in intake or introduction of new courses in an institution after the notification of the seat matrix for the relevant year shall not be taken into account for the purpose of admission under the Rules. Therefore, the seats that are made available in any of the engineering colleges after the notification of the seat matrix cannot be filled up by the 2nd respondent in terms of the Rules. In the present case, there is no dispute that the seats in the three colleges referred to above are made available only after the completion of admission by the 2nd respondent. Therefore, in normal circumstances, the seats available in the three colleges referred to above are not available to be filled up by the 2nd respondent in terms of the Rules. Therefore, in normal circumstances, the seats available in the three colleges referred to above are not available to be filled up by the 2nd respondent in terms of the Rules. However, as noticed by me earlier it is the case of the 2nd respondent that is the light of the Interim order made by this Court in Writ Petition No. 34146 and 34147/1999 referred to above, since this Court has directed under similar circumstances that the seats which would be available even after the completion of the seat matrix, should be treated as casual vacancy seats and to be filled up by the 2nd respondent in terms of rule-18 of the Rules, the 2nd respondent issued notification annexure-A for the purpose of filling up the said seats as it could be seen from sub-rule (9) of Rule-18 of the Rules extracted above, a candidate who has already been selected and received admission orders in any of the discipline is not entitled to seek allotment of casual vacancy seats. Sub-rule (7) of Rule-18 of the Rules defines that seats surrendered or forfeited by candidate who had obtained admission order after complying with all formalities to be treated as casual vacancy. No doubt, the seats now made available in the three colleges, referred to above, cannot be construed as a casual vacancy in terms of sub-rule (7) of Rule-18. However it is the case of the second respondent that the said seats have been treated as casual vacancy in view of the observation made by this Court while making the interim order in Writ Petition Nos. 34146 and 34147/1999 to treat such seats as casual vacancy and, therefore, they are notified for selection. Further, there is no provision under the Rules conferring right to a candidate who has already indicated his choice, at the time of counselling and got himself admitted to professional course, at a later stage to surrender admission after the completion of counselling process in respect of various additional seats that is made available in any of the engineering colleges. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioners have no right to seek for a direction to the 2nd respondent to reconsider their case for counselling and allot seats in any one of the three colleges referred to above taking into account the choice they may indicate at the time of counselling. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioners have no right to seek for a direction to the 2nd respondent to reconsider their case for counselling and allot seats in any one of the three colleges referred to above taking into account the choice they may indicate at the time of counselling. It is also necessary to point out that in view of sub-rule (b) of Rule-13 of the Rules the seats that are made available in the three Colleges, referred to above, are not available for the purpose of admission under the Rules by the second respondent, since the said seats are made available after completion of the admission by the 2nd respondent. However, in the instant case, in the light of the observation made by this Court in Writ Petition nos. 34146 and 34147/1999, referred to above, when the 2nd respondent has treated the said seats as casual vacancy and on that basis, proceeded to allot the said seats to the candidates eligible to be considered for filling up of casual vacancies, the petitioners cannot have any grievance on that ground, Sub-rule (9) of Rule-18 of the Rules provides that the candidates who have been selected for Medical, Dental and, Engineering in the admission round, shall not be eligible for selection to the casual vacancies in the order of their interse merit. Therefore, since the seats in question have been treated as casual vacancy in view of the observation made by this court in the course of the interim order made in the Writ Petitions, referred to above, in view of the clear bar provided under sub-rule (9) of Rule-18 of the Rules, which prohibits the consideration of the case of the candidates who have already been selected and received orders in any area of the discipline, for admission to casual vacancy, the petitioners are not entitled to be considered in respect of the seats in question; and therefore they cannot have any grievance. Further, it is also necessary to point out that notification Annexure-A was issued as back as on 12th October, 2000. Further, it is also necessary to point out that notification Annexure-A was issued as back as on 12th October, 2000. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent that the selection process has already been completed and the students selected must have joined the colleges in the absence of those candidates who have already been selected, the petitioners are not entitled to seek for any direction to the 2nd respondent. The granting of relief would result in nullifying the admissions of the selected candidates. Further, in a matter like this, in my view, it is not appropriate for this Court at the instance of the petitioners who are admitted for study of subjects (disciplines) in the engineering course to disturb the academic curriculum in the engineering colleges in the State which would result in disruption of the career of large number of other students who as noticed by me earlier, are not before this Court in these petitions. ( 6 ) IN the light of the discussion made above, these petitions are liable to be rejected. Accordingly, they are rejected. However, no order is made as to costs. ( 7 ) SRI K. Vishwanath, learned Addl. Government Advocate is given four weeks time to file his memo of appearance. --- *** --- .