KUNAF DUTTA MATHUR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in these Writ petitions is with respect to the allotment of unfilled Karnataka Category Dental Seats exclusively to payment non-Karnataka Category and permit them including the petitioners to participate in the counselling to be held to the said seats. The dispute as now appears from the pleadings has arisen consequent on the availability of unfilled seats in the Karnataka Category Dental seats for the year 2000-2001. Though various facts are alleged and pleaded, the material facts relevant for the issue would be that for effecting allotment of the seats to the various Dental College under the Karnataka Selection of candidates for Admission to Engineering, medical and Dental Courses Rules, 1997 there are no candidates to be selected against what is described as the payment Karnataka seats. The Rules have been framed in the light terms of the observations made by the Supreme Court in UNNIKRISHNAN J. P. vs STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH The. rules framed may hereinafter be referred to as the CET Rules for brevity and convenience. Various allocations are made and seats have been demarcated with respect to Karnataka students and Non-Karnataka students. There is further classification of payment and free seats. The share of the Non-Karnataka seats has been carved out of payment seats. Free seats are exclusively reserved for Karnataka students. Though I am informed that there are 51 seats unfilled with respect to free seats, in view of specific provisions in the CET Rules, the claim is confined to payment seats, as admittedly Non-Karnataka students cannot claim any seat in the category of Free Seats. As such the issue arise only with respect to payment seats.

(2.) EARLIER, the matter was heard by me at length and as the Counsel wanted an interim order on the distribution of the available surplus seats at the stage of Counselling, I made an order on 19. 09. 2000. The sum and substance of my order is in the following manner:

(3.) NOW the matter has been finally heard. It is also brought to my notice by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that Writ Appeal has been filed against the said interim order before the Division bench and the matter is pending. Prima facie, I feel that in view of the pendency of the Writ Appeal, it may also be convenient for this court to adjourn the matter till the disposal of the Appeal, however, as the Counsels were insisting that a finality be given to this case at this stage I heard the matter and posted the same to 23. 10. 2000 to ascertain the fate of the appeal. On the said date Mrs. Nagarathna, the Counsel for the petitioner who filed the appeal as well stated at the Bar that the appellants are with drawing the appeal. I am hence disposing of the same finally.