HEMALATHA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in these petitions have been admitted for study of engineering courses in the various subjects. In these petitions, they have made two prayers. Firstly, they have prayed for quashing the paper publication dated 12th October 2000, issued by the 2nd respondent notifying that 465 seats in three engineering colleges, namely, Marata Mandal Engineering college, Belgaum, Revana siddeshwara Institute of Technology and Shirdi Sai Engineering college, Bangalore are available for allotment by C. E. T. Cell; and secondly, for a direction to the 2nd respondent to carry out counseling for the petitioners in respect of said 465 seats and allot seats in the said three colleges on the basis of comparative merits of the marks secured by the petitioners in the qualifying examination.

(2.) SRI K. N. Srinivasa learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that though the petitioners have already admitted to various branches of study in various Engineering Colleges, since they have secured higher percentage of marks, their cases are required to be considered for admission in respect of 465 seats now notified for filling up as per notification Annexure-A and therefore, the 2nd respondent must be directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioners for counselling and if the petitioners are found eligible, they must be allotted seats in the three colleges referred to above, in respect of subjects on the basis of the preference to be indicated by them at the time of counselling Elaborating this submission, the learned counsel pointed out that if such a procedure is not followed and If the seats in question are allowed to be filled up as a casual vacancy, the students who are less meritorious than the petitioners would be entitled to get admission for study of engineering course in respect of various subjects in which normally they would not be entitled for admission in preference to the claim of the petitioners. Therefore, he submits that if the procedure now adopted by the 2nd respondent is allowed, it will result in discrimination in as much as the students who are more meritorious would be denied the right to select the subject of their choice while the students who are less meritorious, will have the benefit of the subject of their choice. Therefore, he submits that the direction sought for by the petitioners in these petitions requires to be granted.

(3.) HOWEVER, Sri K. L. Manjunath, learned Counsel appearing forthe 2nd respondent, and Sri Vishwanath, learned Additional government Advocate for the 1st respondent, seriously countered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners They pointed out that since the new three colleges referred to above were recognized by the A. I. C. T. E. after completion of counselling by the 2nd respondent the said seats are treated as casual vacancy. Sri Manjunath submitted that though normally the said seats are not required to be filled up for this academic year by the C. E. T Cell in view of Rule 13 (b) of the C. E. T Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the "rules"), however, in the light of the interim order made by this Court in Writ Petition No. 34146 and 34147/ 1999, directing that the said seats should be treated as casual vacancies, the 2nd respondent took steps to fill up the said seats as casual vacancies He pointed out that such of those students who had appeared for counselling pursuant to notification issued on 12th October, 2000, have already been admitted in the light of the preference given by them and at this stage for any reason their selection is nullified, it would seriously affect their academic career. He further pointed out that since the petitioners are already admitted by the 2nd respondent on the basis of the choice given by them, at the time of counselling and thereafter, they were admitted for study of engineering course in various colleges allotted to them, in view of sub-rule (9) of Rule-18 of the Rules, they are not entitled to seek allotment of seats which are required to be treated as casual vacancy seats. He also pointed out referring to Sub-rule (7) of Rule-18 of the rules that such of those seats surrendered or forfeited by a candidate who had obtained admission after complying with all the formalities shall be treated as casual vacancies. Therefore, he submits that in view of Sub-rule (7) and Sub-rule (9) of Rule 18 of the Rules, the petitioners who have already been selected by the 2nd respondent for study of engineering course, are not eligible for consideration for casual vacancy seats, and therefore, they cannot seek for a direction before this Court to reconsider their case for counselling and admit them for study of engineering course in the subject of their choice in the three colleges referred to above.