Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 853 (KAR)

Abhishek Krishna v. Medical Council of India

2017-05-30

H.G.RAMESH, JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. In these writ petitions, the grievance of the petitioners inter alia is that the admissions made to Postgraduate Medical Courses under the NRI/Management quota are contrary to law. The matter requires consideration. 2. Sri N. Khetty, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for respondent No.1. Sri N.K. Ramesh, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for respondent No.2. 3. At the request of learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, notice to respondent No.4 is dispensed with. 4. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are given two weeks' time to file statement of objections. 5. In view of what is stated by a Seven Judge Bench of the Supreme Court at Para 131 in P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra [ (2005)6 SCC 537 ], respondent No.2-Karnataka Examinations Authority and respondent No.3-State of Karnataka, while making allotment of seats under Regulation 9A of the Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 ('the Regulations') for the academic year 2017-2018, shall not permit 'NRI quota' in excess of fifteen percent and further it shall be confined only to the children of NRIs or their wards. We may add that this direction has been given by this Court on 27.04.2017 in WP Nos.17999-18002/2017, a copy of the said order is produced as Annexure-P to these writ petitions. This is only a reiteration. 6. Having regard to the grievance of the petitioners, we direct that all admissions made to Postgraduate Medical Courses in Karnataka for the academic year 2017-2018 under the NRI/Management quota shall be subject to the result of these writ petitions. 7. Regulation 9A of the Regulations is mandatory, and hence, under no circumstance it shall be defeated. Therefore, under no circumstance, Postgraduate Medical Colleges in Karnataka shall admit any student to any Postgraduate Medical Course contrary to Regulation 9A of the Regulations. Any admission made contrary to Regulation 9A is void. Even if seats fall vacant in any category for any reason, such seats shall be filled only through the Common Counselling Authority provided under Regulation 9A. No vacant seats shall be filled without the said seats being allotted by the Common Counselling Authority. Any term in any consensual agreement to the contrary is void as it is violative of Regulation 9A. 8. This order shall be complied by all the Medical and Dental colleges in Karnataka and all the authorities concerned. No vacant seats shall be filled without the said seats being allotted by the Common Counselling Authority. Any term in any consensual agreement to the contrary is void as it is violative of Regulation 9A. 8. This order shall be complied by all the Medical and Dental colleges in Karnataka and all the authorities concerned. Every college, officer or authority who disobeys or fails to strictly comply with this order shall be liable for action under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. Liberty is granted to any interested party to take out contempt proceedings before this Court. 9. Sri N.K. Ramesh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2-Karnataka Examinations Authority who is present in Court, is directed to communicate this order to the Karnataka Examinations Authority forthwith and the Karnataka Examinations Authority shall in turn communicate this order to all the Postgraduate Medical Colleges in Karnataka.