KRISHNENDU HALDER Vs. VISWESWARAIAH TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is fifed by a student who is the petitioner in the writ petition by challenging the order dated 24.6.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge, in W.P. No. 83/2008 The appellant is a student who is presently studying in the I semester of Bachelor of Engineering (B.E.) in Information Science and Engineering in the 3rd respondent-College, He was admitted in the said course during the academic year 2007-08, According to the appellant, he belongs to the scheduled caste community of 'MALO' in the State of West Bengal. He passed his plus-two examination of the West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Examination in 2007 securing in all 132 marks out of 300 marks in the elective subjects and secured an overall 44% marks in the optional subjects. The petitioner's admission in the 3rd respondent-College, had to be approved by the 1st respondent-University which however, by its communications dated 27.12.2007 and 07.12.2007, which are at Annexures M and K, informed that admission of petitioner could not be approved as the marts obtained by him in the optional subjects were less than what had been prescribed by the University. According to the University, the appellant had not fulfilled the eligibility criteria as per the State Government order in force as well as the criteria fixed by the University. The said communications were challenged by the appellant in the writ petition by seeking a declaration that since he belonged to scheduled caste category, he was entitled to the reduced eligibility criteria which had been extended to the scheduled caste category students of the State of Karnataka, Further, he sought a declaration that the regulations of the AICTE as per Annexure-D would govern his admission.

(2.) In response to the said writ petition, the University filed its statement of objection, inter-alia, contending that under Section 14 of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984, the State Government had issued a notification dated 28.2.2006 framing the Rules for Selection of Candidates for Admission to Government seats in Professional/Educational institutions Rules and the said Rules had statutory force and were binding on the University; that as per Rule 3 of the said Rules with regard to SC, ST and OBC candidates 45% to 40% were applicable with regard to the candidates belonging to the State of Karnataka and the same did not apply to the said category from outside the State of Karnataka and that the non-Karnataka students were not entitled to the benefit prescribed for SC, ST and OBC candidates of the Karnataka State, Placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the context of the right of non-Karnataka students to claim reservation in the State of Karnataka, it was contended that since the petitioner/appellant had failed to meet the eligibility criteria as per Rule 3, the University was justified in issuing the said communications and that the eligibility criteria were prescribed considering the needs to maintain minimum standards of professional education which is a mandatory requirement and which could not be relaxed. Accordingly, the University sought dismissal of the said writ petition.

(3.) The learned Single Judge on hearing the arguments on -both sides concluded that a candidate belonging to the scheduled caste in the State of West Bengal i.e. a non-Karnataka scheduled caste candidate was not entitled to the benefit of reservation or other privileges in the State of Karnataka and for the very same reason that the learned Single Judge stated that the reduced eligibility criteria prescribad for candidates belonging to scheduled caste and scheduled tribe of other states cannot be extended in the State of Karnataka and that the Principal of the College had without looking these aspects of the matter had admitted the petitioner end therefore, the said admission could not be regularised. Accordingly, he dismissed the writ petition by holding that the petitioner was not entitled to the reduced eligibility criteria as fixed by the 2006 Rules framed by the State Government. Being aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the petitioner has preferred this appeal.