A RAMADAS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed by way of public interest seeking to purify the administration in admitting the students to the privileged medical education in the state of Karnataka with the following prayers. Wherefore it is prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to initiate action against Dr. S. Kantha on the basis of the report submitted by the lokayuktha (respondent 3), and/or direct the respondent 5 to initiate appropriate action against Dr. S. Kantha for her removal from the post of vice-chancellor, rajiv gandhi university of health sciences, and/or direct the first and third respondents to prosecute Dr. S. Kantha for having committed offences as per complaint produced at Annexure-D , and pass such other and further orders as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case".

(2.) THE facts in brief as stated in the petition are as under. For the academic year 1993-94 admissions were made by the state government on the basis of the result in the entrance test. There was no common entrance test (cet) in existence at that point of time. The selection scrutiny committee (for short 'the committee'), in collusion with the officials and students, admitted non-meritorious students giving a go-by to the academic ranking after the test. The committee members accepted the manipulated rankings in the admission form by placing students at higher rankings even though they had in fact not been placed at a higher ranking in the entrance test. Committee consisted of Dr. M. Ramanna, the then director of medical education as chairman, Dr. Jai renukarya, the then deputy director of medical education as secretary and Dr. Mrs. Kantha, the then principal of Bangalore medical college as the principal. The state government, on coming to know about the several illegalities committed by the committee, referred the matter for investigation to the Karnataka lokayukta (for short 'lokayukta') and the lokayukta, after investigation, came to a conclusion that fraudulent admissions were made for the said year. A first information report (fir) in cr. No. 966 of 9-3-1994 was submitted to the sessions judge, Bangalore. Later, the lokayukta submitted a report that Dr. Kantha is not involved in the matter and her name was dropped from the proceedings. The state government, later, cancelled the admissions of the students which was subject-matter of writ petition in this court. The cancellation was upheld by this court and the same was taken by way of an appeal to Hon'ble Supreme Court in civil appeal nos. 9436 to 9453 of 1995. The Supreme Court, in their proceedings, requested the chief Justice of the high court to nominate a district and sessions judge to undertake an inquiry with regard to the illegalities committed by the members of the committee in the matter of admissions. An inquiry was held by Sri t. Mahesh hegde, district and sessions judge and he (the enquiry officer) found that the members of the selection scrutiny committee including the chairman were equally guilty, having been promoted (lokayukta investigation is still pending ). The selection scrutiny committee included respondent 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court not only condemned the fraud played by the students but also ruled that but for the (officials') active role, the students could not have secured the seats in the highly objectionable and undeplorable manner. Later the lokayukta submitted a report on 24-10-1997 recommending disciplinary action against Dr. Mrs. Kantha, Dr. Jai renukarya and Mr. Prakash under Section 12 (3) of the lokayukta act (for short 'the act' ). The competent authority, though required to Act, have failed to take action within the prescribed period.

(3.) PETITIONER states that the respondents 1 and 2 failed to take action against Dr. Mrs. Kantha despite the report by the upalokayukta including prosecution. She was, at that point of time, working as vice-chancellor of rajiv gandhi university. In these circumstances, to maintain purity in public administration, the petitioner has sought for the reliefs.