S.B. Patil Dental College Hospital, Naubad Bidar and Others vs State of Karnataka and Others

Ram Mohan Reddy, J. - There is no dispute that 40 seats in the stream of dental in the first petitioner educational institution were not filled up by COMED-K, in other words, seats meant to be filled up by the management. Those seats, were filled up by admitting 25 students. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 26 eligible for admission to the said course and having done so the 1st petitioner-college made a representation to the third respondent-University for approval of the admissions which when not responded, has resulted in filing W.P. Nos. 27974/2014 and connected matters, when a Division Bench by order dated 18.11.2014, read down Annexure-A therein as a show cause notice to which the petitioner college was permitted to file detailed consolidated reply within a week and directed the third respondent-University to pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one week, with a further direction that if the petitioner-college satisfies the eligibility of petitioner Nos. 2 to 26, to announce the results of the examination taken by those students.

That judgment when carried to the Apex Court by third the respondent-University in SLP (Civil) 31732-31757/2015, was disposed on 30.10.2015, dismissing the petition, according to the learned counsel for petitioners.

Petition is not opposed by filing statement of objections. However, Sri. R. V. Nadagouda, learned counsel for third respondent submits that the Apex Court in Priya Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh and others reported in 2012 (7) SCC 433, at paragraph No. 46.8 observed thus;

46.8. No college may grant admissions without duly advertising the vacancies available and by publicising the same through the internet, newspaper, on the notice board of the respective feeder schools and colleges, etc., Every effort has to be made by all concerned to ensure that the admissions are given on merit and after due publicity and not in a manner which is ex facie arbitrary and casts the, shadow of favouritism.

According to the learned counsel, petitioner did not fulfil the requirement of the observations of the Apex Court and if done so permission to admit petitioner Nos. 2 to 26 could be considered.

In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the decision in Priya Gupta v. State of Chattisgarh (AIR 2012 SC 2413); when considered by a learned single Judge in W.P. No. 51937-51938/2013 in Miss. Srinija Dasari D/o; Sri. D. Ranga Rao v. State of Karnataka and others and connected matters, by order dated 03.04.2014, Annexure-A, opined that, if seats available are lesser in number than the aspirants seeking admission against those vacant seats-there can be no doubt that without an entrance test being conducted to gauge the inter-se merit, no admissions can be made, however, if the available seats are more than the candidates, who are otherwise eligible for admission, the holding of a entrance test to address their inter se merit would be unnecessary and meaningless. Therefore, learned counsel submits that applying the said observations, petitioners Nos. 2 to 26 are entitled to be admitted against 40 vacant seats for the Course for the academic year 2013-14. In addition, it is submitted that petitioner Nos. 2 to 26 having been permitted to attend the course and examination for the first year, by interim orders of this Court and if asked to leave the college, at this stage, would cause irreparable injury and loss.

If regard is to the fact that petitioner Nos. 2 to 26 are otherwise eligible for admission to the vacant seats which are in fact 40 in number, during the academic year 2013-14, in the first petitioner educational institution, for the dental stream and having been permitted to continue the course and attend the examination schedules by interim orders of this Court, there can be no reason not to apply the decision in Miss. Srinija Dasari''s case, and direct the third respondent to approve the said admissions.

It is no doubt true that in Priya Gupta''s (AIR 2012 SC 2413) case the Apex Court observed that interim orders should not be passed in cases of admission to professional courses. However, in the facts of this case, learned Judges of this Court having granted interim relief to the petitioner Nos. 2 to 26 to continue in the course from 2013-14 onwards and also appear in the examinations scheduled, in the interest of those students, it would be appropriate to direct the third respondent to approve their admissions, without however making this order as a precedent.

It must be noticed that in paragraph No. 46.8 in Priya Gupta''s case the Apex Court having spelt out the prescription in the matter of admitting students to vacant/unfilled seats when there were no candidates, requiring vide publication of the vacancy in the seats so that every eligible candidate would be extended an opportunity to make an application for admission to the said seat, which apparently first petitioner educational institution failed to do so, hence, this order should not be treated as a precedent.

It is made clear, that any such future violation committed by the first petitioner college should be dealt with firmly by the third respondent-University and if approval of admission to students of similar such vacant seats are sought for in future without compliance of paragraph 46.8 of Priya Gupta''s (AIR 2012 SC 2413) case, it is needless to state that first petitioner institution must be penalised and appropriate orders passed by the third respondent-University, touching upon the affiliation issued to the first petitioner college.

Petitions are ordered in the terms supra.