Back
Karnataka High Court
A.PRABHAKARA REDDY - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA - Respondent
Decided On : 01-01-80
Mandamus - Transfer of College - Karnataka Medical Colleges (Selection for admission) Rules, 1978 - Rule 9, Rule 11
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus to transfer him to Bangalore Medical College from the Government Medical College, Hubli, based on his selection and allotment to the latter.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Rules in question were not statutory rules with the force of law, and therefore, did not confer any legal rights upon the selected candidates. As no obligation or duty was cast upon the Selection Committee or State to allot the petitioner to Bangalore Medical College, the court concluded that the writ of mandamus could not be granted.
Issues: The issues revolved around the interpretation of Rule 9 and Rule 11 of the Karnataka Medical Colleges (Selection for admission) Rules, 1978, and whether the petitioner had a legal right to be transferred to Bangalore Medical College.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that as the Rules were not statutory rules with the force of law, they did not confer any legal rights upon the selected candidates, and therefore, no obligation or duty was cast upon the Selection Committee or State to allot the petitioner to Bangalore Medical College.
Final Decision: The court discharged the rule issued earlier and dismissed the petition, with no order as to costs.
( 1 ) THIS petition coming up for further order, by consent of counsel for petitioner and Respondents 1 and 2, is; taken up for final hearing and disposed of by the following order;
( 2 ) THE Court felt that Respondents 3 and 4 were not necessary parties while issuing the rule. Therefore, no notice had gone to them.
( 3 ) IN this Writ Petition the petitioner has prayed for a Writ of Mandamus from tnis Court to Respondents 1 and 2 to transfer him to the Bangalore medical College (Government College) affiliated to the Bangalore University from the Government Medical College, hubli, where he is now prosecuting his studies in M. B. B. S. Course, consequent upon his selection and allotment to the Karnataka Medical College, Hubli (affiliated to the Karnataka Universily ).
( 4 ) THE petitioner has founded his right to Writ of mandamus on Rule 9 read with Rule 11 of Karnataka medical Colleges (Selection for admission) Rules, 1978 (here-in-after referred to as 'the Rules' ).
( 5 ) SRI Gangi Reddy, learned Counsel, appearing for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the Selection committee was bound to allot, after selection of candidates to the Government Medical Colleges affiliated to the university from which the selected candidates had also obtained their qualifying examination, namely, the two Year P. U. C. Course.
( 6 ) RULE 9 of the Rules is as follows: -"9. Distribution of seats among government Colleges: - (1) Subject to the provisions contained in the following sub-rules, seats other than those reserved under clause (a) of sub-rule (2) of rule 2 and rule 4 shall be distributed University - wise i. e. , seats in Colleges affiliated to the karnataka University shall be allotted to persons passing from Colleges affiliated to that University and seats in Colleges affiliated to the Bangalore and Mysore Universities shall respectively be allotted to persons passing from the colleges affiliated to each such University: provided further that not more than thirty per cent of the seats in colleges affiliated to any University may in the discretion of the Selection committee, be allotted to students passing from colleges affiliated to any other University in the State or elsewhere in India. (2) Notwithstanding anything in sub rule (1), where the number of persons belonging to the S. Cs. and s. Ts selected for allotment of seats in any University falls short of the number of seats reserved for the said categories of persons under rule 5, such seats shall be filled from among the applicants belonging to the said categories in the other Universities. "and Rule-11 of the Rules is as under:"allotment of persons to Government Medical Colleges: - (1) Persons selected under rule 10 to Government Medical Colleges shall be allotted to the several Government Medical Colleges by the selection Committee, regard being had to the place of residence of such persons and the preference indicated by them. (2) The Selection Committee shall not be bound to allot any candidate to any particular college (3) The decision of the Selection committee regarding allotment shall be final. "
( 7 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contends that having regard to the intention of the rule, the Selection committee is bound to make allocation in accordance with sub-rule (1) of rule-9 without any transgression in spite of the discretion reserved for the Selection Commitee under the proviso to that sub-rule in so far as it relates to the candidates at the top of the list in the merit pool. He fairly concedes that this must be inferred having regard to rule-11 set out above.
( 8 ) I am unable to see how that could be gathered as the intention by the combined reading of rule 9 (1) and rule 11. Though the language of sub-rule (1) of rule-9 of the Rules is unambiguous and clear, it is conditioned and its operation is restricted by the proviso to that sub-rule. The proviso empowers the Selection Committee to alter the command of sub-rule (1) to the e
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
