Avinash Illur vs Special Officer, Common Entrance Test (CET) Cell and Another

R. Gururajan, J.—Petitioner Avinash Illur is seeking a direction directing the Respondents to treat the inclusion of Sindhanur place in the list of non-Rural area at Annexure-G only prospectively from the date when Sindhanur was eligible to be treated as Urban Area. A direction is also sought for the Respondents to permit the petitioner to select an engineering seat under Rural category and to extend all benefits as rural candidate is entitled to.

Petitioner has completed his education from first standard to 6h standard at Sindhanur. It was a rural area at that time. Thereafter, petitioner completed 6th standard to 10th standard from Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Kuknoor, District Koppal. The said place also comes under rural category. The Tahsildar, Sindhanur has issued a certificate certifying that parents of the petitioner does not come under creamy layer. Petitioner did write common entrance test and passed with rank 25628. Petitioner was not selected under rural category on the ground that Sindhanur is included in the Urban category in the CET Prospectus. Petitioner complains that he has studied in the rural area and hence his case could not have been rejected on the ground of no rural area in the given circumstances.

Sri Venugopala Gowda, learned Counsel appears for Respondent- 1. Sri Manohar, HCGA accepts notice for Respondent-2.

Matter is heard for final disposal.

Sri Chandrashekhar P. Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the facts and grounds raised in the petition. He also says that the petitioner cannot be deprived of rural status in the given circumstances. He strongly relies on a judgment of this Court in Saifulla M Vs. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited and Another, . Per contra, learned Counsel for the Respondents would show that this matter is fully covered by an order of this Court rendered by my learned Brother Judge in WP No. 30577 of 2002 and connected matters disposed of on 28.8.2002.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I have carefully perused the material on record.

Admitted facts would reveal that at the time of admission to professional course, petitioner''s area of school became an urban area in terms of Annexure-F. Petitioner''s contention is that he did study earlier in a rural area and that therefore he is to be declared as rural candidate in terms of the material available on record. This Court in somewhat circumstances, while considering this very aspect of the matter, has ruled that a vested right accrues to the petitioner only when applications are made by them to the professional course. It is not in dispute that an application is made by the petitioner for the professional course and at that point of time, the area of his school area was declared to be an urban area. If that is so, the Respondents are right in rejecting the case of the petitioner on the ground of no rural area in the given circumstances. Counter by Respondents is fully supported by a decision in WP No. 30577 of 2002 dated 28.8.2002.

Petitioner''s Counsel also relies on a decision of this Court in Saifulla M Vs. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited and Another, . A reading of the said judgment would show that the said judgment is distinguishable on facts. That was not a case of admission to professional course. Even otherwise, the facts of this case are totally different from that of the facts of the present case. The said judgment cannot be made applicable to the present set of facts.

In the circumstances, I have no option but to reject this petition, and, I do so in the case on hand. However, rejection of the petition would not come in the way of the petitioner getting admission in any other category if available to the petitioner and in accordance with law. No costs.

Sri Venugopala Gowda, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondent-1 and Sri Manohar, HCGA are permitted to file their respective memos of appearance within four weeks from this Judgment.