_ 1 _
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA A? ééwG§LéR§V,
DATED TEES THE 5"':@X_QF JUME3gddé
BEFO§E A u h ' '
THE HON'8LE MRs.£Q3j:cfi S V[Nfié$§§TH§Av
WRIT PETETION NoAi;§gg{25O4@§§g}AD)
BETWEEN
ASHU KH%RE"aT % j%= » %~x%J;
3/0 BAL_GAN§AQHAa_KHAREig V
AGED"i8,YEAR$y'STUDENT""
I MBBS,_SLN1JALINGAPRA
MEDICAL COLLEGE ANQ',
HSK HQSPKTAL AND 2_'
RESEARCH GEN?Rg,'BAGALK0T
...?ETITlONER
fi"._{BY1§Rf7MAHESH R UQPIN, ADv.,}
'Amb»T~"
1. . MEDICAL CQUNCEL OF INDER
nA:wAN-GALIB MARS
KQTLA ROAD
NEW DaLH:~11@ 002
BY xws SECRETARY
_ 2 I
2. RAJIVIGANQHI UNIVERSITY
op HEALIH SCI£NCE8
FOURTH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR""*. .
BANGALORE, BY £?S REGISTRAR 7}
3. S NIJALINGAPPA MEDICAL CGLLEGE
AND HSK HOSPITAL AND*,'~I I '
RESEARCH CENTRE, BAeALKQT.V
BY ITs PRINCIPAL. ".f--':_ -~~
'."= »VIVga{;RE$PONDENTS
{BY SR1 N KHETTY, ADV»; FOR R--i: _
SR1 N.K.RAME$u; ADV}, FQR_R%2; '1«
R-3 SERVED) ' " * 1"' VV"'""'
TRES VWRIT; §EI:IIQN~' Is FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 AND 227»oF'TH3 CGNSTITUTION 09
INDIA ERAYING TO QUA$H THE COMMUNICATIQN DATED
2.11.2093 ='3sU3fi_>BY "THE UNIVERSITY VIBE
ANNExURE+nvAND'gTc;,"» ""
THIS p$II%I©& éoflime om FOR HEARENG THIS
_pAy,.$gEIcouRT"MAQgI?HE FOLLOWING:
Qfifififi
Afih thié Writ petition, the petitioner has
-f;-gnaIIen§g$ the communication dated 12.11.2003
V'aIs%uedi kng the 2"! respondent --University
*§AmfieXure–D} and a direction to the Emi
M”
…3,…
respondent ~UniV@rsity to apprdvfivfaffiéiii
admission oi the petitioner E5 the7I yé§LiMBES.3
course for the academic year 2§G3;O4®iiiV;”a
2. According to tfieifietiiimfiefiiwfifiuigia
native cf Madhyagpgradeéfigjflhg $éS~”§assed
Highez”-Secondary {lC3+2}
conducted by.i§fie ffi%%h%ai §§@q§5%fi’Rajya Open
Schooig”Bfié@%ia§iniF§fi1§i”2OC3 “”” with English,
Maths, Ph&Sifi§;$fihefii%ifi§ and Biology and the
said qcuifie is pfifidfiéged by the Madhya Pradesh
“*Rajj%4i§p3n §Ch@ol, Bhopal and that tha
iQx@§ingt§Qhfl@gnducted by the said Open School
gfiafiié §ii@ibility for admission to MESS
gour%$ as ihe said examination is equivalent
ftfi ii0%2 examination. According to the
V*_Lip%tiiioner, he was admitted to the said course
ixin Government Higher Secondary School at
*&,,.,»»v'””
:5»
-4-
Kuehmi District, Sidhi, Madhya Pradesh ~dQfiaii
completed his course in July 2003. He.reiiee*ifi
upon a circular issued by the Madhy3W§reeeefir_’
Gevernment which states that the Higfiagatfiéitiii
(‘L
and Higher Secondary Sehebi eXams_ oft thtfi
Madhya Pradesh State Qpen Scfieoi from 1997 are
recognized equivalent’ tej fiigfimegcheoi and
Higher Secondary” ;”eX§@sixf,eendeeted by
M.P.SeCQndery«i§Ed§eatieh. §eérd. On the
strengtKLaMef V :hé},’s§i§, equivalence, the
petitioner’ got” himself” admitted to M.B.B.S.
aéduree proyieionelky in the I?” respendent w
ce3iefie*_ifiiithe* academic year ZOOBMO4. It
**,,appeé:ét tfietfi the College eeught fer
ij,eligibiiity’ certificate of the students and
*jjrhé’VUfiiversity, by letter dated 12.11.2003
‘fl=(ghn§xure~m;, declined to issue eligibility
‘i*_eertificate to the petitioner, which has been
fly
x”
.-5»
impugned in this writ petition. Thereaftex,
the celiege had issued a circular dated
16.2.2004 prohibiting the petitienerx item
attending the classes. Censequemtl§}ifthei~
petitioner’s fethet requested “”the* X2$%i
respondent ~University’ i;tQ”Vi fiermit i:VtEe:
petitioner to attend “the “Classes fpendingwi
consideration of the isefie by the_GeVernment
as per”-_Enne%ure~S; ‘W””ficcording to the
petitioner; _thea University «did not ceneidex
the e1igibilityki”ef the petitioner and
“-,th¢fe£§:e, he hee*fiied this writ petition.
ii3. ‘ 2 have heard the learned counsel for
e the petitioner and the learned ceunsei for the
~ireepQndente. é2″flfi
9/”
4. Thea learned c:c>r’;:;ie;nt”.
relies upon a decision of the*flpex Ceeit in
the case ef Raaameeg éRASAD=iMgTeue3 ya}
KARNATAKR UNIVERSETY reficeeee ifi’i§e6 Sc 1448.
It is fettheffsflbmitted that the examination
takefi fag tie *petitiener is not one «of the
iieted °examinetiOfi recognized by the End
‘”g_ reepqfident ¥Unive:sity and ihat the refusal to
VAt:gient[“:eiigibiiity certificate to the
‘p§tit:efi¢fi’ia fiustified and does not call for
inteeference by this Court and therefore, the
Jéiefit petition eught to be dismissed.
3/
-9-
6. Re3pondent No.1 wMedical Council of
India has also filed its counter affidavit to
the wrifi petitien stating that it is a settlefig
Pfisifiion in law that the Courts WQQffi fi¢£°~ ~
substitute its Qpinion ever the opiniéh cf the.
expert authorities created ufide:»fihe_$tétuiesTf
framed by’ the Par1iamen£’agr Zthé Vlegiégaipte
and has relied upon degiéficmg ¢f~ §he ?Apex
Court in aha ca§§ ¢g;KR:sgNA PREYA GANGULI vs
university, ‘.;uég¢¢wf» g(1984)1 sec 307;,
A.P.CHRISTIAN MEDICAL EOLLEGE vs s@ATE OF R.P.
:y”fi§m {gmcffiag {f198a}2 sec 66?} and C833 vs
9§c§sgg:¢*Kw&AR AND OTHERS [{l998}5 sec 377;
to c@fitend fi§ét this Court ought not to dir@ct
Wm, the 2mi fiespondent ~University to approve the
“._fi§mié3ion of the petitioner to the 1 year MBBS
=_ éofirse for the academic year 2093-94.
%
…]_0_
7. At the outset, it is neceseary to
reiterate that the issue of equivaiencei of
degrees or certiiieatee secured by . the
candidates from Secondary Education Couree”§r:”
Universities within India. er éoverseee tie} a.
matter te be left to iQX§é§fii§§rM©fi ?rgg}
Universities and, All Vifidie. ecdieeixwhiehwfilayiii
down and maintain academia standards in
education and it “ie- not .fdru the Court to
engage: itseif yin Vsfiehh a matter. in this
centext,r.it. is grelevamt to refer to the
w_ decigioh of “the ,Rpex Court in the case of
‘:2eAaeNDgApeeRsAD wVS– KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY AND
Aeereeer5;é§5:ted in are 1986 S.C.l448, where
‘win the ceetext of eligibility for admission to
:*BlE;_ Degree ceurse, studente seeking
efiedmieeions had to pass two year Pre-
*:HQeiversity Examination <3f the Prewuniversity
%
W11-
Beard, Bangalore or an examination held byaeh§=i”
other Board or Univereitymireeognieed ‘as
equivaiemt to it, the Hen’bie1kSe§reme”.Coerte”
held that students paseie§=,Hieher=rSeeee&ary
Examination held by’Secondér§;éégeatieh’Qeerd,
Rajaethan, would be .eieeriy:Lifieiigibie for
edmieeion tg tree iee§fiee#ieee%§§, when that
examimatiofi”eae”fi§fif§§CQ§nieafi as equivalent
by the “”” “fiereeték iefiieereity to the Ere”
Univereitfi reeeifiafiiegi held by the §re~
University”B0ar@,i%em§alQre. According to the
t’R@@XiiCQert, Ait~mie ior each University to
rdeeide”,theeiquestiQn ef equivalence sf an
exemihatiefii7ef any other Board with the
eu_4eexaminatioh which primarily’ constitutes the
»beeie of eligibility and further it would not
‘ig the just and proper for the Courts to sit in
igjedgment ever the decision of the University,
»&
.”
-12-
because it is not a matter on which the Cou:E_
poseesees any expertise. The University Qg its .*
Council is best fitted to decide whetflereafiyi
exemimation held within :tfie”.fiSta:eee_is5
equivalent to any QtherV examifiation 3havifig’
regard to the courses, eyiiébu$,’the_§ueli£y
of teaching or instruetienfenditfieflstahdard of
examination. It is angeaeafiemjcflfgfieetion in
which t:~;V;a”i’«;*:{.:,-=A:i..w,§4,: é:f;§uid’V’.”-nae”_”‘:h~é;e:£ere with the
decision iakefi by the Uhiyersity.
8.;”‘Eo1lowihg’ “the above ejecisien, a
eQiVieier1?Befich v3f ‘this Court in ‘Writ Appeal
Nd:§?95/2§G3iS%RES}, in the caee ef
ViDr.T.RaGu;ufeja Rae wvs– The Dental Council of
‘ “5IgéiaL& Afiother considered the question as to
®fiethe:5 the qualification. of Master of
fiSciefice{Qentistry} was equivalent ‘U: the
4/
“.14-
against the said order, the Division- §enen”_
hehj whether the fnmn qua1ificetionee;afe~fihee
same or equivalent are mattefea”etT–beet “be
decided by expert booies oiike tee ~eefifia:’
Council of indie, as uthie court fdoes not
possess the requieite expertiee to defiermime
the questions of equiVe3enoeQj Accordingly,
appeal was diemiseedfi 5
Q; It_iefleieo;fe1event to cite another
deoie:’Lon *-.of:- e:is.,”a’:_%§’uxt in w.p.No.20o37/’2005
“. digfioeed of 5n»3Q.5.2oae wherein the rejection
Vg’o£”utne=eeeniva1enoe of M.So. in Nursing
obtainefl by the getitioner therein from the
‘euUniVefe;ty’ of’ Hewai, U.S.A,, by ‘the Nursing
fféofineil of India was not infiexfered with by
‘o’ ehis Court. IQ {
/
-15..
10. Similarly, iJ1 W.P.No.6OQ/2936 Vehiehh7″
has been dismissed teday, the deeieiQh”ef the7
Medical Council of Ihdia;KV%hiehhghee_ g¢£*e
recognized the residehCfl§Teining’QbieihedWby
the petitioner thexeih in §§eVehtiVe»Meeieine
in the Depertmehiheie-Fafiiigieghdx Preventive
Medicine efil’iMehefit%’fliMefiiq%§h College,
Naehvil1e,e”fehheesee{T,USR_iwhieh is a three
yeare’_ceetee§;hee’beeh’upheid.
$1, The deeieiehe abeve cited pertain to
Dental Ceeneii, of’ Ineie, Medical. Council of
Indie;= Karhataki Uhieereitiee Act and Indian
h_ hexeihfihfiehhcil ehd the same squarely apply to
theC iaete fef this case wherein the 2nd
hh respondent *¥University hee, bye letter’ dated
(fkrmexure-B), stated that the
h_@etifiiener ie DOfi feund eligible as the 10+2
9*
-15-
caurse sha baa completed is not recogfiized by 1″
the University and the writ» p¢t:ii§g”gas*
dismissed.
12. Taking’ inE?_ CQns%§@f9§iofi ‘the §fact$
and circumstances $f tfii§ fi§%§ %h® the ratio
Qf the de§§éi%n3] éig§G%g%w§#@% I have no
hesitatiom” gm hp13;§g_ £$§t_ gfie petitiener
cannot “be »@f$fi$ed L§fiQ’*:eiief. Accordingly,
wtik §e§ifii§5″fii%k§i%fi§SSed, but. without any
order as fig costsgs
&Cflfi§
}u&g9§