PRANAVA P S Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in W. P. No. 30577 of 2002 is claiming the reservation under Rule 14 (3) of the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Engineering, Medical and Dental Courses Rules, 1997 (' rules' for short), on the ground that he has studied 10 full academic years between 1st standard and 10th standard at Sullia and Alike Villages. The petitioners in W. P. Nos. 30478 and 27308 of 2002 are claiming the reservation under the rules on the ground that they have studied 10 full academic years between 1st standard and 10th standard at Mudhol. The petitioner in W. P. No. 28174 of 2002 is claiming the reservation under the rules on the ground that he had studied 1st standard at Humnabad and from 2nd standard to 10th standard at Maniknagar. The petitioner in W. P. No. 32520 of 2002 is claiming the reservation under the rules on the ground that he has studied 1st standard to 4th standard at Koppa and 5th standard to 10th standard at Sringeri. The petitioner in W. P. No. 26816 of 2002 is claiming the reservation under the rules on the ground that he has studied 1st standard to 5th standard at Yenigadala village. As such, all these petitioners are claiming that they are entitled to reservation under the said category.

(2.) THE grievance of all these petitioners is that in pursuance of the government Order dated 29-7-1994 students who studied in rural areas with a population of less than 50,000 from 1st to 10th qualifying examination, are entitled to reservation under Rule 14 (3) of the Rules. The said Government Order was in force on the day when all these petitioners completed their SSLC examinations. Therefore, a right has vested in them to claim reservation under these rules while considering their applications for entering into professional courses. However, the Government by its order dated 1-2-2002 has amended the said rules.

(3.) IF the aforesaid amended rule is made applicable to the petitioners, they would be ineligible for the said reservations. Therefore, they have filed these writ petitions. Some of the petitioners have challenged the validity of this amendment, whereas, others have claimed the benefit under the Government Order prior to this amendment.