Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 998 (KAR)

KEERTHI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2003-12-01

body2003
( 1 ) IN these batch of writ petitions, petitioners are the students of M. B. B. S. Course and B. D. S. Course admitted in various Colleges on the basis of selection made by the Common Entrance Test Cell (for short, CET Cell) for the academic year 20022003. A few of the petitioners students were selected under the Management Quota also. All these petitioners have sought for a direction directing the respondent University and the respective Colleges to permit the petitioners to pay the examination fee for the I Year M. B. B. S. and B. D. S. examinations of the academic year 2002-2003 scheduled to be conducted by the respondent University in the month of September, 2003. ( 2 ) THE grievance of the petitioners made out by the counsel appearing in these petitions is that, the petitioners were earlier admitted through CET Counseling to respective Colleges for M. B. B. S. , B. D. S. and Engineering Courses and when they were prosecuting their studies in pursuance of the permission granted by the State Govt. and Central Govt. some of the aggrieved persons have come up before this Court by filing W. P. Nos. 39772 and 42277 of 2002. This Court by order dated 3. 12. 2002 passed in the said writ petitions directed the State Govt. and the CET Cell to conduct the selection process on the basis of the merit of the students. Accordingly the second special admission round for medical / dental seats was conducted by the CET Cell by issuing Notification dated 12/12/2002 pursuant to which, the petitioners have been selected and admitted to respective Colleges. ( 3 ) WHEN things stood thus, the Respondent University has approved the admission of all these petitioners and intimated the same to the respective Colleges by way of communication dated 2. 8. 2003. However, in the said communication, a foot-note is given to the effect that the petitioners are eligible to appear for the examination to be conducted by the University only in the month of March / April, 2004 as all these petitioners were admitted to the MBBS / BDS Course only after 30. 11. 2002. 8. 2003. However, in the said communication, a foot-note is given to the effect that the petitioners are eligible to appear for the examination to be conducted by the University only in the month of March / April, 2004 as all these petitioners were admitted to the MBBS / BDS Course only after 30. 11. 2002. Being aggrieved by the said communication, the petitioners have immediately come up in the instant writ petitions praying for a direction to the University to permit them to appear for the I Year MBBS / BDS Examination to be conducted during the month of September, 2003. This Court, after hearing the learned counsel appearing on either side, has, by way of an interim order directed the respondent University to accept the examination fee from these petitioners and issue the necessary application forms and admission cards to them and further permit the petitioners to appear for the examination commencing in the month of September, 2003. IN the said interim order, the respondent University was directed not to announce the result of examination until further orders from the Court and further it was clarified that the petitioners shall not claim any equity during hearing of these cases. This Court further made it clear that the said interim order granted is subject to result of the instant writ petitions. ( 4 ) THE learned counsels appearing for the petitioners in the instant batch of writ petitions submit that, in pursuance of the interim order granted by this Court, the petitioners have appeared for the MBBS / BDS examinations and the results of other students have been announced but not the results of the petitioners. Therefore, an appropriate direction be issued to the respondent University to announce the result of the petitioners in the instant petitions and permit them to prosecute their II Year MBBS / BDS Course. ( 5 ) THE principal submission canvassed by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners is that, all these petitioners were earlier selected by the CET Cell and admitted to respective Colleges and when they were prosecuting their studies, once again, they were permitted to appear for further counseling and on the basis of their merits, all of them were selected and accordingly, they have been admitted to respective Colleges. As per the curriculum for the academic year 2002-2003 issued by the respondent University, the last date for admission with penal fees is 30. 11. 2002. Learned counsels submitted that when the respondent University has approved the admission of these petitioners to MBBS / BDS Course, denial of permission to the petitioners to appear for the examination to be held during the month of September, 2003 is without justification. ( 6 ) IT is not the case of the respondent University that these petitioners are lacking the requisite qualification for prosecuting their studies or the petitioners are short of attendance. Nothing has been pointed out by the respondent University in support of denial of permission to the petitioners to attend the examination in the month of September, 2003 except making a bald statement in their statement of objection that those candidates who were admitted to the MBBS / BDS Course beyond 30. 11. 2002 are eligible to appear for examination to be conducted only during March / April 2004. Learned counsel submitted that this Court after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent University and after taking all material aspects into consideration, directed the University to permit the petitioners to appear for the examination to be held in the month of September, 2003. Accordingly, all the petitioners have attended the I Year MBBS / BDS Examination held in the month of September, 2003. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for seeking a direction from the Court for announcement of their results and further, if they are found eligible, permit them to continue in the II Year MBBS / BDS Course. ( 7 ) TO substantiate these submissions, Sri. Ravivarma Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on an unreported order of this Court passed in W. P. No. 28982/01 disposed of on 14. 03. 2002 wherein it is held that the University cannot make any discrimination between those who were admitted well within time and those who were admitted subsequently by virtue of an interim order. Those candidates who were admitted subsequently must be treated in par with other students. In the said writ petition, this Court has directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to complete his Post Graduation studies. Sri. Those candidates who were admitted subsequently must be treated in par with other students. In the said writ petition, this Court has directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to complete his Post Graduation studies. Sri. Ravivarma Kumar further submitted that the University without consulting the respective Colleges regarding the attendance, eligibility and such other credentials of the petitioners has without any reasons, denied permission to the petitioners to appear for the examination to be held in the month of September, 2003. When the University has approved the admission of these petitioners in respective Colleges, for no fault of them, they should not be penalized. Further, the learned counsel vehemently submitted that MBBS and BDS Courses are professional courses and if the petitioners are made to continue the same Course for another six months, their future career will be affected. Their eligibility to prosecute further studies in other Universities may be affected and therefore, there is no justification for the University to take a stand contrary to the existing Regulations and well settled principles laid down by the Apex Court and this Court. ( 8 ) PER contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent University submitted that, the petitioners have been rightly permitted to appear for the examination to be conducted during the month of March / April, 2004. To substantiate his submissions, the learned counsel placed reliance on the Revised Ordinance relating to MBBS and BDS Courses. The said Ordinance reads as follows:- all candidates admitted beyond that last date stipulated by the University shall have to appear for I Year Professional Examination to be held subsequent to the regular examination after completion of the prescribed duration. ( 9 ) FURTHER, the learned counsel submitted that for the academic year 2002-2003, classes have commenced from 1st October, 2002 and the petitioners have been admitted in the month of December, 2002. As per the University Ordinance, the candidates who have completed one year Course from the date of their admission are eligible to appear for the I year examination. In this case, all these petitioners have been admitted during the month of December and therefore, they are eligible to appear for the examination to be conducted by the respondent University during March / April, 2004. In this case, all these petitioners have been admitted during the month of December and therefore, they are eligible to appear for the examination to be conducted by the respondent University during March / April, 2004. Further, since as per the University Regulations, the requisite attendance for MBBS students is 80% and for BDS students is 75%, and the petitioners having been admitted during December, 2002 are not eligible to appear for the examination to be held in the month of September, 2003. Therefore, the respondent University has not committed any error in not permitting the petitioners to appear for the examinations to be held during September, 2003. ( 10 ) IN the light of the contentions urged by the counsel appearing for the petitioners, counsel for the respondent University, counsel appearing for the State Govt. and the CET Cell and also the counsel for the respective Colleges and after careful perusal of the material available on record, it emerges that the respondent University has proceeded only on the basis of their Ordinance and has sent the approval of the admission of these petitioners with a note that these petitioners will be eligible to appear for the examination to be conducted by the University in the month of March / April, 2004 on the ground that they have been admitted beyond 30. 11. 2002. Further, the requisite attendance as per the existing Regulations, for MBBS Course is 80% and for BDS Course, it is 75%. Except making these two bald statements in their statement of objections, the University has not chosen to give a specific detailed reason for not permitting the petitioners to appear for the examinations to be held during September, 2003. This matter has come up before the Court for several times. On more than six occasions, at the request of the counsel appearing for the respondent University, the matter was adjourned to enable the respondent University to take necessary decision. However, these are purely academic matters and the competent authority must take appropriate decisions with a pragmatic approach to the facts and circumstances of the case and also take into consideration that for no fault of them, the petitioners should not suffer. However, these are purely academic matters and the competent authority must take appropriate decisions with a pragmatic approach to the facts and circumstances of the case and also take into consideration that for no fault of them, the petitioners should not suffer. ( 11 ) IT is pertinent to note that as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that as per the Ordinance, that admission to I MBBS shall be done only once in a given year. The academic term the course shall commence on or about 1st August each year. However, in extraordinary cases, the Vice-Chancellor may extend the last date of admission upto 16th September. A candidate admitted under such circumstances shall put in a course of work of at least fifteen days during the ensuing vacation period. When there is a provision available in their own Ordinance, the University ought to have taken a decision after having deliberations with the concerned academic body and the respective Colleges. Now the respondent University has announced the results of those students who have taken examination in the month of September, 2003 but so far as the petitioners are concerned, their results have not been announced in view of the interim direction issued by this Court. It is duty cast on the respondent University to re-consider the matter taking into consideration the background of the case and having regard to the directions issued by this Court and take a decision after having deliberations with the respective Colleges. ( 12 ) IN my considered view, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the well settled principles of law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in a series of decisions, in academic matters, this Court cannot exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 13 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances as stated above, the instant writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions:- (a) The University is hereby directed to reconsider the matter and pass appropriate orders after taking into consideration the observations made by this Court in the course of the order as stated above as expeditiously as possible within ten days from today. (b) If the University takes a decision and the petitioners are found otherwise eligible and on par with other students admitted for the academic year 2002-2003, the University is directed to announce their results and permit the petitioners to prosecute their further studies in the II Year MBBS Course. (c) Further it is made clear that the University is permitted to collect the relevant information from the respective Colleges regarding credentials of the petitioners and the respective Colleges authorities shall furnish the same to the University. --- *** --- .