Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 912 (KAR)

PURNIMA SHARMA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2001-12-14

G.C.BHARUKA, K.SREEDHAR RAO

body2001
BHARUKA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner inter alia seeks a direction to the Principal of the Oxford Dental College, Bangalore, Respondent 4, to permit her to join the BDS course in compliance to the admission order issued by the Special Officer, Common Entrance Test Cell, Bangalore, (Annexure A ). She also wants that respondent 3 - Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences should approve her admission. ( 2 ) IN the State of Karnataka, the admissions to the course of medical, dental and engineering are governed by the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Engineering, Medical and Dental Courses Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") which have been framed under sub-section (1) Section 14 of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984. ( 3 ) IN support of prayer made in the writ petition, father of the petitioner has filed his affidavit dt. 7-12-2001 placing on record some more material facts. Statement of objections have been filed by the Principal of the 4th respondent college, the Special Officer (CET) and the Registrar of the University. FOUNDATIONAL FACTS ( 4 ) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner had appeared at the Common Entrance Test held by the Special Officer (CET) under the provisions of the Rules. Keeping in view her ranking at the test, she was called for counselling on 12-11-2001. But, because of her ailment she could not come althrough from Delhi, where she resides, and requested the Special Officer (CET), to permit her father to exercise the option. The said permission having been granted, father of the petitioner opted for BDS course in the 4th respondent college. He has also deposited Rs. 75,000/- towards the fees of the course as per the Rules. Subsequently, after having recovered from the ailment she appeared before the Special Officer (CET) for collecting order of admission (Annexure "a") on 19-11-2001 which was immediately issued to her on the very same day. After receiving the said admission order, she reported to the college on the same day i. e. 19-11-2001 as well as on the succeeding day but the Principal of the college refused to permit her to join the course. After receiving the said admission order, she reported to the college on the same day i. e. 19-11-2001 as well as on the succeeding day but the Principal of the college refused to permit her to join the course. ( 5 ) THE Principal of the respondent college in his affidavit has stated that all the students who had been given admission in his college by the Special Officer (CET) had reported by 1 p. m. on 15-11-01 except the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the administrative officer of the CET had sent a letter dated 22-11-01 to the Principal of the 4th respondent college for collecting the fee deposited by the admitted student along with all the original documents of the candidates concerned. Curiously the college collected the original documents of only 49 students who had reported till 15-11-01 only. ( 6 ) IT is a matter of record that as required under Clause (xiv) of Rule 18 of the Rules, a conciliation meeting was convened on 15-11-01 to identify the number of unfilled and unallotted first BDS seats for the academic year 2001-02. The meeting was attended by the Principal of the 4th respondent-College as well. According to him, he had reported at that meeting that the present petitioner has not joined the college till 15-11-01 but assured that he will permit her to do so till 17-11-01. He has further stated in his affidavit that since the petitioner had not joined the college till 17-11-2001 therefore the management of the college advised the Principal of the college to admit one M. D. Yunis. Accordingly the said M. D. Yunis was admitted to the course on 19-11-2001. ISSUE INVOLVED ( 7 ) THE only question that falls for our consideration is as to whether despite grant of admission to the petitioner by the Special Officer (CET), in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Rules, the Principal of the 4th respondent college had any authority in law in not permitting her to join the course. STATUTORY PROVISIONS ( 8 ) ADMITTEDLY, the petitioner was given admission against payment seat. Rule 18 of the Rules provides for admission from Clauses (i), (ii), (xii), (xiii) and (xiv), which are relevant for the present purpose read thus :18. STATUTORY PROVISIONS ( 8 ) ADMITTEDLY, the petitioner was given admission against payment seat. Rule 18 of the Rules provides for admission from Clauses (i), (ii), (xii), (xiii) and (xiv), which are relevant for the present purpose read thus :18. Admission Round : (i) A candidate shall in the order of merit be allowed to confirm the seat already selected by him in the preliminary round if he is satisfied with it or surrender and select another seat which is available when his turn comes. (ii) If the candidate confirms the seat selected by him in the preliminary round, then the Special Officer shall satisfy himself that the candidate has paid the requisite fees in the form of a D. D. and has also produced all the necessary documents in original and thereafter issue an admission order to the candidate. (xii) A candidate who had received the admission order does not surrender or fails to report to the college of admission till the last day of the admission round, forfeits the entire amount paid as fees. (xiii) After the last date fixed for the candidates to join the institutions which they are admitted the principal of the respective institutions shall send the list of candidates who have joined, to the Special Officer within one week there from. (xiv) After the closing date for admission as fixed by the Government is over a reconciliation meeting regarding the number of unfilled and unallotted seats shall be held between the CET Cell, the Directorate of Technical Education, Directorate of Medical Education and the Respective Colleges and after identifying the vacant seats, issue notification regarding such seats by the concerned Directors. Such seats shall be filled by the colleges. ( 9 ) FROM Clause (ii) of Rule 18, it is clear that once the candidate confirms the seat selected by him/her and the Special Officer (CET), is satisfied that the candidate has paid the requisite fee in the form of demand draft and has produced all the necessary documents in original, he has to issue an admission order to the candidate. ( 10 ) IN the present case, the petitioner had paid the fee of Rs. 75,000/ -. She had also produced all the requisite documents in original. Thereafter she was issued the admission order placed at Annexure-A on 19-11-2001. ( 10 ) IN the present case, the petitioner had paid the fee of Rs. 75,000/ -. She had also produced all the requisite documents in original. Thereafter she was issued the admission order placed at Annexure-A on 19-11-2001. The said order clearly speaks that she had been admitted to the 4th respondent - College. Therefore, with the issuance of Annexure-A, the petitioner got admitted to the 4th respondent-College and the next thing required to be done by her was to join the College. ( 11 ) FROM reading of the Rules, it is clear that after a candidate is admitted by the Special Officer (CET), to a professional college, the Principal or management of the college have not been given any discretion of not permitting the candidate to join the course in the college. This is amply clear from Rule 23 (1) of the Rules, which reads thus :23. GENERAL : (1) The management of any institution shall admit only the candidates nominated or allotted by the Special Officer to a course of study in the institution against "free seats" or "payment seats" as the case may be. ( 12 ) THE situations arising out of non-joining of admitted candidates have been taken care of in Clauses (xii), (xiii) and (xiv) of Rule 18, which have been already noticed above. ( 13 ) IN the present case, keeping in view the explanation furnished by the petitioner the Special Officer (CET), had issued the admission order to the petitioner on 19-11-01. It has not been disputed that she had reported to the college on that very date. It is also not in dispute that the 4th respondent-College had not submitted the list of candidates to the Special Officer (CET), within a week from the last date fixed for the candidates to join the college. Further, though as noticed above, a reconciliation meeting was held in terms of Clause (xiv) of Rule 18 of the Rules, but admittedly no notification with regard to vacant seats was issued by the Director, Medical Education, permitting the management to fill up any such seat. ( 14 ) AN amendment to Rule 10 of the Karnataka Selection of Candidates to Engineering, Medical and Dental Course, 1993 was made in 1996. ( 14 ) AN amendment to Rule 10 of the Karnataka Selection of Candidates to Engineering, Medical and Dental Course, 1993 was made in 1996. By this amendment, Clause (g) was added to sub-Rule (3-A) of Rule 10, which reads as under :" (G) After the closing date for admission, as fixed by the Government is over, a reconciliation meeting regarding the number of unfilled and unallotted seats shall be held between the CET Cell, the Directorate of Technical Education, Directorate of Medical Education and the respective colleges and after identifying the vacant seats, issue notification regarding such seats by the Directors concerned. Such seats shall be filled by the Colleges. " ( 15 ) THE above clause is exactly in same terms as it now appears in Clause (xiv) of Rule 18 of the present Rules. The Supreme Court in its order dated 9-8-1996 passed in the case of T. M. A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (1996) 5 SCC 8 while considering the validity of the above clause, had held that"in our opinion, the said clause is a salutary one. All that we need to add to the said clause is that the action contemplated therein shall be taken within fifteen days of the closing date for admission. Any seats remaining unfilled thereafter can be filled by the management of the private engineering colleges on their own and in their discretion. This direction shall not apply to medical/dental colleges. " ( 16 ) FROM the above it is clear that unless after reconciliation, appropriate notification is issued by the Director of Medical Education the medical and dental colleges cannot fill the vacant seats, may be the free seats or the payment seats. ( 17 ) KEEPING in view the facts placed before us and the statutory provisions contained in the Rules, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner was duly admitted to the 4th respondent-Oxford Dental College and therefore the college is duty bound to permit the petitioner to join the college and allow her to complete the course. ( 17 ) KEEPING in view the facts placed before us and the statutory provisions contained in the Rules, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner was duly admitted to the 4th respondent-Oxford Dental College and therefore the college is duty bound to permit the petitioner to join the college and allow her to complete the course. ( 18 ) SO far as the admission given to one M. D. Younus as stated by the Principal of the 4th respondent-college on 19-11-2001 is concerned, it will be for the University to ascertain and find out whether the admission so given was within the permissible intake of the college concerned and if it is found that it was not within the permissible intake, appropriate legal action may be taken in accordance with law. ( 19 ) WRIT Petition is accordingly allowed with costs of Rs. 10,000/- which may be adjusted against the tuition fee payable by the petitioner for the 2nd year of the course in question. Petition allowed. --- *** --- .