Khan Education Society''s Manjeera College of Education and Others vs The State of Karnataka and Others

A.S. Bopanna, J.—Petitioners are before this Court assailing condition No. 2 imposed in the order dated 12.09.2014 passed by the first respondent contained in Annexure-F to the petitions. The petitioners are seeking that the endorsement dated 16.09.2014 at Annexure-G to the petitions be quashed. Petitioners are also seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the second respondent to issue eligibility certificate of the students admitted in the petitioners'' institutions in respect of those students who are not from within the State of Karnataka.

Petitioners are educational institutions imparting teaching education and conducting course for award of the degree of Bachelor of Education (B.Ed. for short) and are affiliated to Gulbarga University. The university had granted permission to the petitioners-colleges to admit the students for the academic year 2013-2014. Intake permitted was 100 students of which 50 students were to be admitted from the government quota and the remaining 50% was available under the management quota. Petitioners are stated to have made the admissions to the said course and ultimately, while seeking approval of the admissions, the first respondent through its order dated 12.09.2014 though has approved the admissions has imposed condition No. 2 that the seats shall be filled from among the students hailing from Karnataka. Petitioners therefore aggrieved by the said condition are before this Court seeking for the prayers as noticed above.

The respondents have filed their separate objection statement. They seek to justify the action. It is contended that as per the government policy since centralized admission is to be made, the government is required to provide seats to the local students and as such, 50% quota has been retained for admission from the students being sponsored by the government. In that view, in respect of that portion of the quota it has been indicated that students from Karnataka will have to be admitted. The second respondent also seeks to justify the action in similar terms as has been done by the first respondent.

Insofar as condition that has been imposed and contention has been urged by the petitioners that it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, the learned counsel for the second respondent has relied on the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Saurabh Chaudri and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, wherein while considering the reservation to be made for admission to a particular category of students/institutions/State, the Hon''ble Supreme Court was of the view that it is permissible and the same does not offend Article 14 of the Constitution. In that view, it is contended that condition imposed is justified and does not call for interference.

Having noticed the law as laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court and in that light while examining the instant facts it is not in dispute that insofar as total number of seats that has been approved for admission, 50% of the seats has been retained as government quota for which the government would have to take steps for centralized admission for the said quota and the students would have to be sponsored under the said quota to the respective colleges to fill up 50% of the seats. In the instant facts, approval granted on 12.09.2014 is post-facto approval after the admissions have been made by the petitioners'' institutions in respect of the seats that have been approved for admission. In the light of the law as laid down and keeping in view of the fact that 50% of the seats had been reserved for government quota, to the said extent condition as imposed in the impugned communication dated 12.09.2014 would be justified.

However, what requires consideration in the instant facts is as to whether merely because petitioners have admitted the students from outside the state of Karnataka to the seats which had remained vacant without the candidates being sponsored from the government quota, the benefit of approval of the admission could be denied to such of those students. From the objection statement and the materials available on record, there is no material to show that despite students of government quota being sponsored, petitioners/colleges have denied admissions to such students and have taken students from outside the State to fill up government quota as well. If that be the position, in the absence of the government quota students being sponsored, seats would have fallen vacant for the entire academic year and in that light if the admission as had been made by the petitioners'' institutions are taken into consideration, admissions made are not by denying seats to the government quota candidates who hailed from Karnataka.

Therefore, in a circumstance where the post-facto approval was being granted and when there is no material to indicate that any of the government quota seats have been denied by the petitioners'' institutions, by imposing such conditions the students who have been admitted and have undergone the course would be denied benefit of the course. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, respondents would have to ensure that the candidates who have been admitted by the petitioners had fulfilled eligibility criteria for the course and the admissions had been made by the petitioners in accordance with law. Therefore, though I see no reason to quash condition No. 2 which has been assailed in the instant petitions appropriate direction is to be issued. The endorsement being in similar terms also does not require that the same be quashed.

Hence, notwithstanding the said condition, in the peculiar circumstances of the instant case, where the admissions have been made by the petitioners and there are no other candidates belonging to Karnataka claiming the same seats, mandamus is issued to respondent No. 2 to issue eligibility certificate to the students admitted by the petitioners'' institutions even in respect of the students who are not from the State of Karnataka. However, prior to issuing such eligibility certificate, the second respondent shall ensure such students fulfilled qualifying criteria to be admitted to the course and thereafter issue such eligibility certificate.

Consideration in this regard shall be made by the second respondent as expeditiously as possible but not later than four months from the date on which a copy of this order is furnished. Needless to mention, depending on the decision to be taken by the second respondent with regard to the eligibility of the candidates, their results shall also be declared.

The petitions are disposed of in the above terms.

In view of disposal of the main petitions, I.A. Nos. 1/2015, 2/2015 and 3/2015 do not survive for consideration and accordingly they are disposed of.