VENUGOPALA RAO Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition the petitioner has challenged the Constitutional validity of regulation (1) of the revised Regulations for short term course in Modern Medicine (Emergency Medicine) of the Bangalore University. He has also challenged the Constitutional validity of the R. 2 of the Rules framed by the Government of Karnataka by its order No. HMA 443 PIM 76 dated 30th June, 1977 (Annexure-E to the petition). The latter mentioned rules are executive in character. The Rules merely provide for mode of selection for the course which is regulated by the University in respect of which the degree is awarded by the University.

(2.) The facts leading to this petition may be briefly stated as follows : The petitioner is a graduate possessing the Bachelor of Ayurveda Medicine and Surgery degree of the Andhra University. It is asserted by him that the Bachelor of Ayurveda Medicine and Surgery degree obtained by him is equivalent to BSAM degree conferred by the University of Bangalore for a corresponding course. He supports this assertion by stating the fact that he secured admission to the Post-Graduate Course in Ayurveda Medicine of the University of Bangalore and has passed the same. For the academic year 1981-82, the petitioner applied to the Short term course in Modern Medicine provided for the graduates of the Universities in Karnataka by the Regulations of the University, Reg. (1) of which is challenged in this writ petition. He was not even called for interview by the Selection Committee constituted under the Rules. But, he learnt on enquiry that he was not called for interview nor selected for the short term course in Modern Medicine at the Government Ayurvedic Medical College at Bangalore solely on the ground that he does not fulfil the eligibility requirements under the relevant Regulation as well as the Rule. Aggrieved by the. same, he has approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Constitutional validity of the said Regulation and Rule as violative of Arts. 14 and 15 of the Constitution

(3.) The impugned regulation (1) reads as follows :