- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10 TH DAY OF JULY 2015 BEFORE R THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH WRIT PETITION NOS.28681-28684/2015 (EDN-RES) BETWEEN: 1. COLLEGE OF DENTAL SCIENCES PB NO.327, DAVANAGERE-577 004 REP. BY ITS PRINCIAPL DR. VASUNDARA SHIVANNA D/O MAHALINGAPPA B AGED 60 YEARS 2. MR. SYED TANWIR ARMAAN S/O SYED HADIUL ISLAM AGED 20 YEARS 3. MR. SUBIN THOMAS S/O A.C. SIBY AGED 19 YEARS 4. MS. SUVYAKTHA AJILA D/O SATYA PRASAD AJILA AGED 21 YEARS PETITIONER NOS. 2 TO 4 ARE STUDENTS OF 1 ST YEAR BDS COURSE STUDYING AT COLLEGE OF DENTAL SCIENCES PB NO.327, DAVANAGERE-577 004 PETITIONERS (BY SRI MADHUSUDAN R NAIK, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MEDICAL EDUCATION
- 2 - MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001 2. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HELATH SCIENCES 4 TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560 041 REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR... RESPONDENTS (GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE SERVED) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS OF THE PROCEEDINGS FROM THE RESPONDENTS AND TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION DTD.19.2.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-A & COMMUNICATION DTD.2.7.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-A1 BOTH ISSUED BY THE R-2 IN SO FAR AS IT SEEKS TO DIRECT DISCHARGE OF PETITIONERS 2 TO 4 AND DENY THEIR ADMISSION TO 1 ST YEAR BDS COURSE AND ETC., THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral): O R D E R Is it permissible for a Dental College in Karnataka to hold a separate entrance test only for the purpose of filling the unfilled seats in the I year BDS course and, whether holding of such a test would be contrary to the directions of the Supreme Court in Priya Gupta vs. State of Chhattisgarh [(2012)7 SCC 433]? This is the question that requires determination in these writ petitions.
- 3-2. Admission of petitioner Nos.2, 3 & 4 to I year BDS Course in petitioner No.1-College is not approved by the University as per its Communication dtd. 19 th February 2015 (Annexure-A) which is impugned in these writ petitions. These writ petitions were filed yesterday i.e. 9 th July 2015. Similar action of the University has been upheld by this Court in K.V.G. Dental College & Hospital in W.P. Nos.27342-27345/2015 (D.D. 02.07.2015). In the said petitions, this Court has held that a student must obtain a rank in competitive entrance examination conducted by the competent authority in the State or by the body of the private colleges as per the direction of the Supreme Court at para 46.5 in Priya Gupta [(2012)7 SCC 433] and as per Regulation II of the Dental Council of India Revised BDS Course Regulations 2007, to apply for admission to BDS course in any Dental college in Karnataka. Further, this Court has held that the Consensual Agreement dtd. 22.03.2014 at Annexure-B entered into between Government of Karnataka and Private Medical & Dental Colleges in Karnataka for the academic year 2014-15 cannot override the directions issued by the Supreme Court in
- 4 - Priya Gupta s case or the criteria laid down in the Regulations for selection of students to the BDS course. 3. However, Sri Madhusudan R.Naik, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners by referring to the letter of the petitioner-college dtd.28.02.2015 (Annexure- H), which was written after receipt of the impugned communication dtd.19.02.2015 (Annexure-A), submitted that the petitioner-college conducted a separate entrance test through the Test Director, Bapuji Educational Association s Dental Colleges Entrance Test 2014, Davanagere to fill the unfilled seats relating to the academic year 2014-2015, and rankings obtained by petitioner Nos.2, 3 & 4 in the said test was submitted to the University, and therefore, it should be held as complying with the direction of the Supreme Court in Priya Gupta to fill the unfilled seats on the basis of merit obtained in the Competitive Entrance Test. 4. To examine the correctness of the aforesaid submission of the learned Senior Counsel, it is necessary to extract the following directions given by the Supreme Court
- 5 - in Priya Gupta which are directed to be applicable from the academic year 2012-2013 (vide para 78.7): 46. Keeping in view the contemptuous conduct of the relevant stakeholders, their cannonade on the rule of merit compels us to state, with precision and esemplastically, the action that is necessary to ameliorate the process of selection. Thus, we issue the following directions in rem for their strict compliance, without demur and default, by all concerned: 46.5. The admission to the medical or dental colleges shall be granted only through the respective entrance tests conducted by the competitive authority in the State or the body of the private colleges. These two are the methods of selection and grant of admission to these courses. However, where there is a single Board conducting the State examination and there is a single medical college, then in terms of Clause 5.1 of the Medical Council of India Eligibility Certificate Regulations, 2002 the admission can be given on the basis of 10+2 exam marks, strictly in order of merit. 46.7. If any seats remain vacant or are surrendered from all-india quota, they should positively be allotted and admission granted strictly as per the merit by 15th September of the relevant year and not by holding an extended counselling. The remaining time will be limited to the filling up of the vacant seats resulting from exceptional circumstances or surrender of seats. All candidates should join the academic courses by 30th September of the academic year. 46.9. The admissions to all government colleges have to be on merit obtained in the entrance examination conducted by the nominated authority, while in the case of private colleges, the colleges should choose their option by 30th April of the relevant year, as to whether they wish to grant admission on the basis of the merit obtained in the test conducted by the nominated State authority or they wish to follow the merit list/rank obtained by the candidates in the competitive examination collectively held by the nominated agency for the private colleges. The option exercised by 30th April shall not be subject to change. This choice should
- 6 - also be given by the colleges which are anticipating grant of recognition, in compliance with the date specified in these directions. 47. All these directions shall be complied with by all concerned, including Union of India, Medical Council of India, Dental Council of India, State Governments, Universities and medical and dental colleges and the management of the respective universities or dental and medical colleges. Any default in compliance with these conditions or attempt to overreach these directions shall, without fail, invite the following consequences and penal actions: 47.1. Every body, officer or authority who disobeys or avoids or fails to strictly comply with these directions stricto sensu shall be liable for action under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. Liberty is granted to any interested party to take out the contempt proceedings before the High Court having jurisdiction over such Institution/State, etc. 47.6. Upon the expiry of one week after holding of the second counseling, the unfilled seats from all quotas shall be deemed to have been surrendered in favour of the respective States and shall be filled thereafter strictly on the basis of merit obtained in the competitive entrance test. 47.8. No college shall fill up its seats in any other manner. 78.4. With all the humility at our command, we request the High Courts to ensure strict adherence to the prescribed time schedule, process of selection and to the rule of merit. We reiterate what has been stated by this Court earlier, that except in very exceptional cases, the High Court may consider it appropriate to decline interim orders and hear the main petitions finally, subject to the convenience of the Court. We may refer to the dictum of this Court in Medical Council of India v. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences [(2004)6 SCC 76], SCC para 14 in this regard. (Underlining and emphasis supplied) 5. The Competitive Entrance Test referred to by the Supreme Court at para 47.6 extracted above, in the context
- 7 - of filling the unfilled seats, is the entrance test referred to in the preceding paras at paras 46.5 and 46.9. That means, it is only the entrance test conducted by the nominated State Authority or conducted by the nominated agency collectively for all the private colleges. These are the only two methods of selection stated by the Supreme Court at para 46.5 for grant of admission to MBBS/BDS Courses, as second part of para 46.5 does not apply to Karnataka. Two Entrance tests are conducted in Karnataka; one conducted by the nominated State Authority which is called as CET, and the other conducted collectively for all the private Colleges by the agency nominated by all the private colleges which is called as COMEDK. As could be seen from para 47.8 in Priya Gupta, the Supreme Court has stated that No College shall fill up its seats in any other manner. Entrance test conducted by the Minority Institutions in Karnataka is different. The petitioner-college has opted for both the aforesaid methods of selection stated by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, it has admitted students to I year BDS Course (2014-15) on the basis of the rankings obtained by them in the two tests namely, CET & COMEDK
- 8 - and had also submitted the rank cards of such students to the University to get the admissions approved. The third entrance test alleged to have been conducted to fill the unfilled seats is not conducted by any of the two recognised Authorities referred to above. The petitioner-college cannot devise a third method of selection of conducting a separate entrance test only to fill the unfilled seats. This is totally contrary to the directions of the Supreme Court in Priya Gupta at paras 46.5, 47.6 & 47.8 extracted above. Hence, the third method alleged to have been adopted by the petitioner-college to fill the unfilled seats is not permissible and is illegal, being contrary to the directions of the Supreme Court in Priya Gupta at paras 46.5, 47.6 & 47.8. Therefore, it is unnecessary to examine as to whether the petitioner-college had really conducted an entrance test to fill the unfilled seats, and as to whether it had really sent the rank cards of petitioner Nos.2, 3 & 4 to the University before the stipulated date. It is relevant to state that the University in the impugned communication dtd.19.02.2015 (Annexure-A) has clearly stated that the College had not
- 9 - submitted rank cards of petitioner Nos.2, 3 & 4 obtained by them in the Competitive Entrance Test. 6. For the reasons stated above, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. Petitions dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE BNS