Back
2023 Supreme(Kar) 649
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Sachin Shankar Magadum, J.
Adity Deepak Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 11724 of 2023 (EDN-RES)
Decided On : 27-06-2023
Bola Vedvyas Shenoy, Advocate, Kavitha H.C., Advocate, N.K.Ramesh, Advocate, Ambarish, Advocate, Santhosh S.Nagarale, Advocate, G.S.Naveen, Advocate
The judgment establishes the importance of upholding reservation policies for economically weaker sections and rectifying historical injustices in educational institutions.
Headnote:
Supernumerary Quota - Unlawful Collection of Tuition Fees - Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019 - Articles 15(6) and 16(6)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was admitted to a college under the 'Supernumerary Quota' with exemption from tuition fees. However, the college unlawfully collected tuition fees and adjusted the scholarship amount towards it.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the college's actions were highhanded and illegal, perpetuating systematic discrimination and denying the petitioner the opportunities she was entitled to receive.
Issues: The main issue was whether the college acted unlawfully by collecting tuition fees from a student admitted under the 'Supernumerary Quota'.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019, specifically Articles 15(6) and 16(6), which provide for reservation on a preferential basis to economically weaker sections. The court also emphasized the need to rectify historical injustices and foster inclusivity in educational institutions.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, directing the college to return the petitioner's certificates and refund the tuition fees with interest. Additionally, the authorities were directed to issue a show cause notice against the college and take appropriate action. The college was also ordered to pay a separate sum for compelling the petitioner to approach the court.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. The captioned writ petition is filed by the petitioner feeling aggrieved by the highhandedness of respondent No.6 - College, which has appropriated the scholarship amount towards tuition fees and therefore, the present captioned writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to direct respondent No.6 - College to handover 8th Semester Marks card, Transfer Certificate, Convocation Certificate and Degree Certificate of the petitioner.
2. The petitioner has also sought a mandamus to direct respondent No.6 - College to refund an amount of Rs. 91,600.00 collected from petitioner towards tuition fees for the academic year.
3. The petitioner was selected for B.E. Course in Electrical and Electronics Engineering in respondent No.6 - college and she got admitted to the course through Common Entrance Test (CET) conducted by respondent No.3 - University. She was allotted with tuition fees of Rs. Zero under category - 1G i.e., "Supernumerary Quota". Therefore, petitioner claimed that she was only required to pay other fees and was not required to pay tuition fees. The petitioner on account of her academic performance was also granted scholarship. When petitioner went to the said college to receive scholarship amount, she was informed that the said scholarship is adjusted towards tuition fees.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that she was allotted a seat under the Category of "Supernumerary Quota", where students are totally exempted from paying tuition fees. Respondent No.6 has highhandedly collected tuition fees and has also adjusted the scholarship granted by respondent No.7. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.
5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 - College and learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 7.
6. The short point that needs consideration at the hands of this Court is:
As to whether respondent No.6 - College has acted highhandedly and has illegally collected the tuition fees when petitioner was admittedly allotted a seat in respondent No.6 - College under the category of "Supernumerary Quota"?
7. Before I advert to the facts of the case, let met examine the object in the amendment brought under Articles 15(6) and 16(6) in 2019. The Articles 15(6) and 16(6) have been inserted in the Constitution, vide Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019. This enables the State to provide the benefits of reservation on preferential basis to the Economically Weaker Ss. (EWSs) in civil posts and services in the Government of India as well as admission in Educational Institutions.
8. 2019 Amendment was introduced and it was intended for social upliftment of the economically weaker Sec. . The Legislatures thought introduction of reservation for economically weaker Sec. is absolutely necessary to address the systematic inequality faced by the weaker Sec. . It is probably in this background to provide a level playing field for the economically weaker sec. as they cannot compete with those who for centuries have had access to resources and means, amendment was suggested.
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court by a 3:2 verdict in JANHIT ABHIYAN VS UNION OF INDIA in Writ Petition (Civil) No(S).55 of 2019, upheld the validity of the 103rd constitutional amendment carried out to provide legal sanction carve out 10% reservation for the economically weaker Sec. from unreserved classes for admission in educational institutions. The Hon'ble Apex Court by upholding the EWS reservation policy, has given its imprimatur to the idea that reservations can be provided to accord protection beyond caste-identities and can be carved out for the economically vulnerable Sec. of people. This has expanded the logic of affirmative action in India as, since independence, reservation policy has been perceived as an extreme tool for protection of only the historically marginalized caste-based communities to mitigate the social exploitation, discrimination, and backwar
