IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 13%: DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2009
PRESENT
THE HONELE MRJUSTICE V.GOPALA 'GOWjDA' L' '
AND
THE HONBLE MRS.JUS'£'ICfJBIV,_1§IAG}\;f%YI§L'i'}~1N2X:: .V "
w.I>.NO.3138%;/2o09(EDNI--..II
BETWEEN: . ' A'
KAVYAJ s D/O ,
JAYASHANKAR KULLAL
AGED ABOUTI8 YEARS, _
R/O sRI.LAIs:sI~I:§I,II'I«:RtIRA, "
IST MA1N,.2?"3"CRQ$S'; .j " »
RANDEsIIIVA;'g,'..v " I
MANGALO_RE¢57*5,0o ' '
PETITIONER
{By Srizé T Ktfigiér Sunjay. Adv.)
,' KARNATAKA
_ }i}E.'.PAR'I'§VIENT OF' HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE
. MEDICAEEDUCAITON,
SOUDHA, BANGALORE
EEP.EY ITS SECRETARY
2 ~ KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY
.. 18TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD,
MALLESHWARAM. BANGALORE660 012
' REP BY TIS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
3 FATHER MULLER MEDICAL COLLEGE
FR MULLER ROAD, it
/'
V
KANKANADY, MANGA.LORE--575 002
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL
4 YEN}?-ZPOYA MEDICAL COLLEGE »
AFFILEATED TO YENEPOYA UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY ROAD, V
DARALAKATIE. MANGALORSH-V575 0.18' A' 1- . "
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL " ~ . -1' . "
5 YENEPOYA UNIVERSITY«.__
UNIVERSITY ROAD, '
DARALAKATTE,
MANGALoER--57*--5..018;" --
REF' BY ITS PRINCEPAL . "
6 RAJIV GANmH1:j1§iiVE:<Si5$;r-_AQF'* 'V V'
HEALTH
JAYA1:xLAQAR;;- ' -- »
BAN=3AIa0rRE--'560T<513A A
REP SB'; ITS :;REG.I_$2IjRAR--- .
7 MEDICALvvCQjUNCIaL"OP' INDIA
POCI_Qs."F-- 1'4, SECTC_}R--8,
_ DWARKA, PHAS.E--I',
NEW DELHI-110075
«BY ITS SECRETARY
RESPONDENTS
.'t¥3§AASri:_A}3'v;:Vij§§1ya Kumar, AGA, for R» 1, Sri N .K.RameSh
fof'~-R-2; 8: "F116, Sri. Mahbaleshwar Gowda, Adv. For R-4 81
R--5, Khetty for R-7, Sri Abhishek Naik for M / S Naik
and Naik Law Firms for R-3}
A O THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF
AEHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
A R3 TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO REPORT OT THE 13'?
YEAR M.B.B.S COURSE FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2009-
10 FORTHVVITH.
This WP having been heard and reserved for Orders on
this day, NAGARATHNA J, pronounced the foliowingr 3,;
,5?
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed by a studerit
to the first year MBBS for the academic
The following prayers were made inithe writ ‘peti;tiori;’«._ _ V
“a] Issue a the. nature’; of
mandamus directing the “r.e’spondent._No.3 fgto
permit the petitioner to””report”-a,to the} year
M.B.B.S. course ‘for”«-the-‘pacademio “year 2009-10
forthwith, and; ” = -.
E”)ireAc_tgth’e .f3t_§1″1:¢spo1ident» to approve the
admission of the petitioner.r’to the 1 year M.B.l?3.S.
co1.1rse”‘a.t’ ” tli–s3.,_ 3″‘–.resp0.nden_t, institution for the
a.cadem1c. _ year’ 2009»i0_ and permit her to
contiiiue and_,com’p1_et~e_ her M.B.B.S. course and
permit him ‘toflappear’ for the examinations as
and rwhen it falls due as per the Regulations
governing” the. course, without any interference
; in his academic curriculum, and;
.0 V c},_OR Alterriativeiy, direct the respondents
1~.and”~2°to give admission to the petitioner in
Medical College/ s to the I year
. VM.B.E3j.«S,7=course for the academic year 2009-10
and permit her to continue and complete the
course as per the Regulations without
Interference in their academic curriculum, and;
A (1) Direct the respondents 1 and 2 to pay
“costs to the petitioner for having made her to
approach this Hon’ble Court Without her fault
whatsoever, and;
e} Grant such other relief/s as this Hon’b1e
Court deems fit under the facts and
circumstances of the case, in the interest of
justice and equity.” %
. X
this court by interim order dated 19.8.2009 directed the
respondent Nos. 3 & 4 in the above writ petitions’4vtol”ad*rnit
the petitioners therein and accordingly the petifiionerl.’herein’ .
was permitted to attend the classesi but paccepptinlgd”
any other fee. According to the pAetitioné.rg3t.he.’
respondent institutions provisionallylpermitted’lherito attend ;
the classes subject to re–allotrnleiit;’ if made by the
second respondent «date anduxsubject to
payment of tuition fee of” subject to the
result of the effect endorsement
dated Annexure~C. The
Medica;l’lCouncfil_v reslpvondent No.7 herein being
aggrieved they: dated 19.8.2009 passed by
this court ti’i’ed”Specia}~._i,eaye Petition (Civil) C.C.No. 12979 to
13050/322009 betore”—the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
‘v1rhiehpA’there’vi.\:£fas an interim order of stay and thereafter
resp’ondentV’.:I$3c»’s. 4 <3: 5 issued endorsement dated 7.9.2009
the provisional admission of the petitioner and
:j.othe'ryAstudents. However, the petitioner was permitted to
the classes. W.P.No.22628«~634/2009 filed by the
" petitioner and other similarly placed students were allowed
by this court by its final order dated 29.9.2009. But on
30.9.2009 second respondent held counseling in reépect of
./('Q
2"'
Vacant government seats available in Medical colleges and
offered the same to the students who had secured a.d1r1ission
at Yenepoya Medical College (dim respondent_..%herei}1j}–.: .
K.S.Hegde Medical College, Mangalore. psince * 99
petitioner did not get any seat in 'peril
30.9.2009, she continued ii'1-the 49 9lrespondentv_Lco_l§lege,.99»
particularly in View of the Jtfignient cotzrt dated
29.9.2009. According on 9.ll0.l2009 she
received a telephone call" of the second
respondent seat in the 3"?'
respondentllcoliegelh on account of surrender
of 9 app/.~,.1'4;""'byei on 30.9.2009 and that
the sarne nrould her and the petitioner agreed
for the saine a11dg'vthe*,_se'c'ond respondent allotted the said
'~ _seat_: and sené";—-the allotment letter to her to enable her
ltoljloin Arespondent college.
4. it According to the petitioner on 09.10.2009 second
0′ ‘respondent allotted three seats to Bidar Medical College, one
seatfleach to Belgaum Medical College and K.V.J.Medical
“College directing the students to report by 12.10.2009.
Annexure–E is the admission order of the petitioner dated
9.10.2009 and Annexure-F is the letter dated 30.9.2009
A
written by the Director of Medical Education to the Principal
of the said colleges including the 3″‘ respondent herein.
Thereafter the 4″‘ respondent is said to have returnedsa-ll the
academic records of the petitioner and when
the 311* respondent college on 12.10.2009
admission order issued by the “flnfil respondent?’ on
09.10.2009, the said college refus_e:c’i-_lVto .accept.
admission order stating that there is no. vacant goifernmentl’
seat available and informed Vtl’1’e-petitioner to”approach the
second respondent. The _r3′<""also gave a letter
dated 12.10.2009___ad{_3ressed Dxirector of Medical
Education to efieict is produced as Annexure–
G. 'Iz'i:.e' «petitiorler._:once»,l again approached the second
resporident"and letter"::lat'ed 15.10.2009 was addressed to 3"'
re-sp'on;;ient._ pandV"dir'*e–eted the petitioner to approach the 3rd
pl When the petitioner once again approached the
it refused admission of the petitioner on the
grouiidtthat there was no Vacancy in the college.
Learned Government Advocate has filed the
it 'A-affidavit of the Principal Secretary, Department Medical
….E§ducation of the second respondent has also filed
£97;
an affidavit and submitted that the same may be taken into
consideration While disposing of the Writ petition.
6. Counsel for respondent No.3 has fiie’d”‘st’ateinent C”
objections and counsel for respondent.. 4
objections contending that .the__ initial ‘Cprayerv”‘i.nv…the
petition was to seek a writ of Ina1’1darans respondent
No.3 but now the enti’reT’eaue§Ve been changed
and a direction Nos.4 & 5.
7. The are extracted
above. oi petition order dated
3.I1.2(Iit}9 has ..-by the 2nd respondent which
reads as foilowst . A S V
– _ :v”‘5li:’5receedings of he Executive Director,
g Kanf1atal{a.’Examinations Authority, 18″‘ Cross,
‘ ‘ Malleshwaram,
Bangalore
HNo.KEA/Legal Cell/W.P.No.31384/2009
Dated:03-1 1 -2009
” ‘Snb: Re~a1Iotme11t of a vacant seat in Father Muller
Medical. College, Mangalore to Miss J .S.Kavya.
CET No.MF 052, Medical Rank 3158 from
Yenepoya Medical College, Mangalore.
V\.’&»’:.::;
Wig-
Ref: 1. Original admission order i\io.10152 dated
24-07-2009 issued to Miss Kavya J.S.
2. Proceeding of the Director of Medical E_d_ucati’on’~ V.
dated O3-10-2009 intimating the vacancies ‘in’ ‘ .
Various medical colleges. V _
3. Request letter dated nil frozn Miss_.E'{;a’vya * _
sent by fax on 09-10-2009′ . &_ ,;« ._ V
4. Reallocation order no. 10152 dated 09- 1.0′-200:3 :, A
issued to Miss KaVyaVJ.S. * «. . *
With reference to thellllllaljove, [reallocation of
medical seat to Miss” Yenepojra Medical
College, Mangalore ll Medical College,
Marlgalore against account of the
surrender of_”all’iusieat by €51′-it Kumar is hereby
withdrawnf” No.l0152 dated 09-
10-2009._.sta11ds :»ind._the admission order given to
Miss 152 dated 24-07-2009 stands
restored. ‘She is report back at Yenepoya Medical
College, lllvlangaiore A’and._ll~7pursue her course in the said
colliige. C M V I
Sd/–
Executive Director,
Karnataka Examinations Authority.”
8.__ in View of the said order, the petitioner has filed the
V. application for amendment of the prayers in the Writ petition
and for directions against the respondent Nos. 4 8: 5. /3;
,./L.’
_ 1 1 _
9. In the affidavit of second respondent, it is stated that
pursuant to the final order dated 29.9.2009 counselirigpgwas
held on 30.9.2009, out of tweniy students
Medical College, eleven students opted
institution and those students were given’, freslfiadrnislsioii
orders with a direction to join
6.10.2009. That out of eleve.n”‘~~seatsV. v_aca.r1t’%_: in*–.]Yenepoya’V’
Medical College, eightstudeén-tslwiivrere-.tilledup and totally
there were seventeen ‘fenepoya Medical
College as on the college refused
to admit lvJ.ho..V.were seats on 30.9.2009
and pursuantto %§p:§seV§1iat:§.fi”‘::iade by the parents and
students, a«.rneetinvg_’under the Chairmanship of the
Director of°’i\/Iedicpa–1 i£_duc’ation on 3.10.2009 and that the
..v_Ava-.{aiit;p_seats in ‘the-Govemrnent Medical Colleges could be
L’ pfor:_re{~’a}loc.ation of the students who had complained to
tlie”‘governvriiei’1t and it was decided to reallocate the said
students«:_of Yenepoya Medical College to the vacant seats
00 avaflable in the government colleges and any other
institution Where there were vacant seats. That on the very
0 “same day, a student by name Sanath Kumar approached the
second respondent intimating that he had surrendered
government seat in the 3”? respondent college, the petitioner
“J/’.,,«
A12-
who was willing was re–allocated to the 3″‘ respondent
college from the rim respondent college, apart
allocation of other students to government coli~ege’sI”V.’
the said circumstances it was decided to.’re>”alIecate”eight”
students including the petitioner and as per’thei.instrii’ctioi1s
of the Director of Medical.»Educaticn; fresh””t’ojrders _:§were.:e.
issued mentioning the date o’fu.1ad:a1ission._V: as 30.9.2009,
therefore, the petitioner”‘p«–ha-all ..Vree_¥al1ocated to the 3rd
respondent college.
10. The Secretary, Medical
Education stated that pursuant to special
round of co.unselin”gj~held:”on.~”30.9.2009 for all the students
including tWop’dee’med, bhiversities, Yenepoya and NFITE
‘”‘«–._carididatesawere ‘is’sued admission orders in respect of the
‘said”vUi’1–iVersities also. But when they went for admission
Yenepoya refused to admit the students and some of
the students had fiied writ petitions before this court and
0’ ‘..:tjv»thi’s”««.tcourt issued interim order directing the Yenepoya
ilniirersity to admit the students selected on 30.9.2009
0’ wvilrhich was challenged by Way of Special Leave Petition before
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which however,
dismissed the same. six”-
W13-
1 1. On the basis of the report submitted by the Dvire’i:.i;o’r. of
Medical Education that some seats weref .
government and other medical colleges, action to ‘*
fill up those seats available in gover_vnme.nt§ar1ld1other’1riedi<:a};l
colleges by the Director of Medical Edncationiatwée
Examination Authority. I–Iowe1uruerT,_V"inpi/ileiiir'-of vifithdrawal
of the re–allocation of .fr.oin.YenevpoVyAra Medical
college to the V3" order dated
3.11.2009. the for to the writ
petition has _.-"arisen . as': also an" application seeking
'amendment' olfiV5i.he fju}a;r¢r..ii1 the petition and a direction
to respo'ndentVN–oVs'.' '5_t'o».p.ermit the petitioner to continue
her st_u_diesd'i'n the {lib respondent college.
the fact that on account of the
slubselquentti'j_ei}3ent and during' the pendency of the Writ
petition!' second respondent has issued the order dated
it withdrawing counseling and reallocation of
— medical seat to the petitioner from Yenepoya Medical Coiiege
” “to Father Muller Medical College, Bangalore (Sid respondent
herein), the amendments have been made with a View to
seek restoration of her admission to Yenepoya Medical
23:
mlglh
College in terms of the admission order produced as
Annexure-A, we are of the considered View that on acgcdouiit of
this subsequent development of withdrawal of_
issued on 9.10.2009 which was in any._V_Acase*~A./znot 3i’r’1._
accordance with law and particularlifgdlnddéyiclationc’oi;
Judgments of the Supreme Court case
Vs. Union of India reported’i’e».:in (200’5}_2V”SCC’.: the
applications for amendfnent :4t:e#a}1oWed.V”Accordingly,
Misc.W.11105/09 and V9 are allowed.
Counsel for the to petition within
a period of V
I3. far of “the petitioner made to the «filth
responderitg collége.”‘..j.s.. idctancemed, the same is as per
AnneXure–A date_d24.:’7.2009 which has to be restored in
dated 3.11.2009 Withdrawing Annexure-E.
4m*ai*i.ci_ 5&}vt1’espondent cokkeges can have no grievance to
al1oWing’of.the prayers made in the amendment application
A. ‘ the-direction sought in View of the fact that as long back
9’ an 24.7.2009, the petitioner was admitted to 4th
…_respondent college and by virtue of the interim order dated
19.8.2009 passed by this court in W.P.No.22192-
22203/ 2009 and connected matters was entitled to
W15-
prosecute studies in the 41″ Respondent college, ___which
interim order passed in W.P.No.22628~»634/09 WaS’~§f’f1itI}1€d
by the Supreme court in Special Leave Petitio_n3V_:ffile’d.’
Medical Council of India and thereafter the”‘pe:tityio’nerAV”
succeeded before this court by virtue of
29.9.2009. Further in respect ofliother
students who were refused attend the 43’
respondent and who before this court
were granted interim against the aim
respondent, ‘interim been affirmed by
the Supreriie Vliea\ife”15etit1on filed by the 4th
respondentfi’ prayers made by the
Detitioncrllflzsai-yieldthe 4*” and 5*” respondents have
to be granted by. ti1is”vcourt by allowing the applications for
” _ aniefindrneiivtptof the ‘W’r’itV petition as well as for direction.
tconseiquently the Writ petition is allowed as against
ail the vrespondents except respondent No.3. The respondent
A 8: 5 shall permit the petitioner to prosecute her
studies the first year MBBS course in the 431 respondent
college pursuant to the admission order issued by the
second respondent on 24.7.2009 by accepting the fees and
5%»
-15-
extending all other facilities which a medical student is___
entitled to in accordance with Regulations.