LAWS(KAR)-2011-5-45

ANIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Decided On May 26, 2011
ANIL KUMAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these cases, the petitioners have questioned the constitutional validity of Rule 12 of the Karnataka Conduct of Entrance Test for Selection and Admission to Post Graduate Medical and Dental Degree and Diploma Course Rules, 2006 (for short 'the Rules 2006') in so far as not extending the reservation to Category-I candidates and also questioning the legality and validity of the provisional merit list dated 5.3.2011 published by the 5th respondent. The petitioners have also sought for a direction to the respondents to consider their case for admission to PG course through the PGET-2011 under the reservation quota of Category-I (in-service quota) extending all benefits which are available to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

(2.) THE petitioners are the General Duty Medical Officers working in various Government hospitals. THEy all belong to Category-I. THE petitioners have produced the certificates showing that they belong to Category-I as per Annexures-'B' to 'E'. It is contended that in response to the Notification issued by the respondents, the petitioners prepared themselves to apply for the PGET-2011 under Category-I through on-line application. However, there was no option for category-I candidates through on-line application. Only three options were given in the application namely, Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and General Merit. It is contended that they requested to respondents to accept their application for PGET-2011 under Category-I. Since the respondents did not accept the claim of the petitioners, left with no option, they applied under general merit quota. THEy made a representation to the respondents requesting them to make admission under Category-I quota. Ignoring their request, the 5th respondent has published the impugned provisional merit list at Annexure-A. THErefore, they have filed these Writ Petitions seeking the reliefs stated above.

(3.) I have carefully considered the arguments of Learned Counsel for the parties made at the Bar and perused the materials placed on record.