BMS Institute of Technology and Management vs Government of Karnataka

K.L. Manjunath, J.—Though the matter is listed for preliminary hearing, by consent of the parties, the matter is heard on merits.

We have heard Sri Vijay Shankar S, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Sri K.A. Ariga, learned AGA for first respondent, Sri K.S. Bharath learned counsel for second respondent and Sri N.K. Ramesh, learned counsel for third respondent.

The petitioner is one of the reputed educational institutions in Bangalore, running an engineering college since 2002. The institution is offering seven undergraduate programmes and one postgraduate programme. For the academic year 2014-15, the petitioner-institution sought approval for commencing two new postgraduate courses viz., machine design and computer science and engineering. Accordingly, the All India Council for Technical Education [AICTE] by order dated 4-6-2014 accorded permission to start the said courses. Based on the approval of the AICTE, the petitioner by its letter dated 17-6-2014 made a request to the government of Karnataka to incorporate the aforesaid two courses in the seat matrix for the academic year 2014-15. The second respondent inspected the college and by its order dated 9-7-2014, pointed out a deficiency that the principal of the petitioner-college is on deputation from the parent institution of the petitioner and that he is also on the rolls of the parent institution. On 28-7-2014, a reply was sent by the petitioner stating that the order has been complied with and informed that Dr. R.V. Ranganath, who is a professor in BMC college of engineering, has been working as principal of the petitioner-institution on lent basis and his lien is continued with the parent college. Only on this ground, the newly sanctioned courses have not been included in the seat matrix for the academic year 2014-15. In the circumstance, the present petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 2 and 3 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 26-8-2014 and to include the petitioner-institution in the seat matrix for the academic year 2014-15 in respect of the newly sanctioned courses.

Sri K.S. Bharath, learned counsel for second respondent fairly concedes that the AICTE has accorded permission for commencing two new post-graduation courses by the petitioner-institution from the academic year 2014-15. It is not the case of the second respondent that the petitioner-institution is having any other deficiencies other than that Dr. Ranganath, is appointed as principal of the college, has still retained his lien in his parent college.

We are unable to accept the argument of Sri Bharath, because, even if Dr. Ranganath has retained lien in his parent college [BMSCE], it is for the respondents to take action against the said college to make good the deficiency, provided there is any shortage of staff. When the respondents 2 and 3 have not disaffiliated the petitioner-institution on the ground that Dr. Ranganath has been appointed principal on deputation allowing the petitioner-institution to admit students in terms of the seat matrix issued by the second and the third respondents for undergraduate and postgraduate courses, the respondents 2 and 3 cannot contend that seat matrix cannot be issued in respect of two new courses.

In the circumstance, the petition is allowed. A direction is issued to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 26-8-2014 and to include the petitioner-institution in respect of the two courses viz., 1) machine design and 2) computer science and engineering in the seat matrix for the academic year 2014-15 in the ensuing second round of counseling scheduled to be held on 6-9-2014.