IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
N.V. ANJARIA, C.J., K.V. ARAVIND, JJ.
SIRI SRIKANTH D/O SRIKANTH R.S. – Petitioner
Versus
THE KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 24645 of 2023
Decided On : 19-07-2024
Admission - Sports Quota - Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Government Seats in Professional Educational Institutions Rules, 2006 - The court interpreted Rule 9(1)(B) regarding sports quota admissions, emphasizing the priority of candidates based on their achievements, leading to the decision to admit the petitioner in the next academic year.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a swimmer with multiple medals, sought admission to an MBBS course under the Sports Quota but was denied despite being ranked higher than another candidate who was admitted. The petitioner argued that the admissions violated the applicable rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the authorities had violated Rule 9(1)(B) of the Rules 2006 by admitting a less meritorious candidate over the petitioner, who had a stronger claim under the sports quota.
Issues: Whether the denial of admission to the petitioner under the Sports Quota was justified and whether the petitioner should be admitted in the next academic year.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the interpretation of the rules regarding sports quota admissions was incorrect, and the petitioner was entitled to admission based on her qualifications and achievements.
Result: The writ petition is allowed, directing the authorities to admit the petitioner to the MBBS course for the academic year 2024-25 under the Sports Quota.
ORDER :
1. This writ petition seeking the following reliefs:
(b) Pass any order of consequential relief or any other appropriate order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the ends of justice and equity.”
2. Heard learned counsel Mr. B.M. Arun for the petitioner, learned counsel Mr. N.K. Ramesh for respondent No. 1, learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Mamatha Shetty for respondent Nos.2, 5 and 6, learned counsel Mr. N. Khetty for respondent No. 3, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India Mr. H. Shanthi Bhushan for respondent No. 4 and learned counsel Mr. Sridhar Prabhu for respondent No. 7.
3. The petitioner is a Swimmer secured one Silver Medal and four Bronze Medals in the National Level Championship conducted by Swimming Federation of India. She has secured one Silver Medal in the South Zone Aquatic Championship. It is stated that the petitioner has participated in the 63rd, 64th and 65th National School Games conducted by the School Games Federation of India. The petitioner represented Karnataka in KHELO India in 2020. In the year 2017, she participated in the National Level Swimming Championship conducted by the Swimming Federation of India.
4. The petitioner aspiring to become a Doctor appeared for CET and NEET Examinations for the academic year 2022-23. Respondent No. 1-Karnataka Examination Authority [KEA] published list of candidates comprising 618 candidates eligible for admission under the Sports Quota. The petitioner was placed at S. No. 24. The list was revised on 08.10.2022, changing the petitioner’s place to S. No. 29.
5. It is stated that respondent No. 1 admitted candidates in the Sports Quota contrary to the list published. It is the specific case that respondent No. 7 was at S. No. 117 in the first list and at S. No. 129 in the second list and admitted to Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Nehru Nagar, Belgaum. Another candidate named Pranitha S.R. whose name was not figured in the published list was admitted to Dr. Chandramma Dayanandasagar Institute of Medical Education. In view of the arbitrary exercise of admitting the candidates contrary to the published list, the petitioner is deprived of admission to medical course. It is stated that the respondent-authorities were evasive in their replies and conduct on the discrepancies in the list.
6. It is stated that this Court in Writ Petition No. 23265/2022 directed to re-do the ranking list under the Sports Quota. The petitioner made a representation on 21.12.2022 to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner while re-doing the rank list. The said request was denied stating that the said exercise was to be done only of a particular candidates. Though the petitioner preferred Writ Petition No. 25780/2022, withdrew the same on 03.01.2023. It is contended that the denial of admission is in contravention of Rule 9(1)(B) of Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Government Seats in Professional Educational Institutions Rules, 2006 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules 2006’ for short]. The respondent Nos. 1 and 7 have filed their statement of objections to the writ petition.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that allotment of seats is as per Rules 2006. Rule 9 of Rules 2006 provides for reservation of seats under different categories. As per Rule 9(1)(B), reservation is provided to the candidates under Sports category. As per the said Rule, the petitioner was categorized as P-IV. Respondent No. 7 was categorized as P-V. The authorities have committed an error in denying admission to the petitioner to MBBS. The a
Asha v. Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences
National Medical Commission vs. Mothukuru Sriyah Koumudi and others
The court established that candidates under the Sports Quota must be admitted based on their achievements, prioritizing those with higher qualifications as per the rules.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the merit of the petitioner should have been the sole criteria for filling up the 4 reverted seats from the All India Quota, as per the Regula....
Meritorious candidates who have pursued their legal right expeditiously without delay and have been denied admission to MBBS Course illegally or irrationally by the authorities for no fault of theirs....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following AIQ merit and preventing vacant medical seats in government colleges as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
The principle of estoppel applies to candidates who participate in a selection process without objection and cannot challenge the process after its completion.
Point of law: Occasion to consider the nature of relief that can be granted to a student after the last date of admissions in case it was found that the said candidate was denied admission illegally.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of merit and fair procedure in completing admissions to medical courses, and the entitlement of a wrongfully denied student to compe....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.