P K ASHA Vs. BANGALORE UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the petitioner who is a student of bachelor of dental surgery course in the 2nd respondent-college which is within the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent-university has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) cancellation of the petitioner's admission to b.d.s. course is not in accordance with any of the Provisions of the Karnataka state universities Act, ordinance or regulations. It is not in dispute that ssce is equivalent to ii year p.u.c. as recognised by the collegiate education so also the university of Bangalore. When she has passed ssce, it is not proper on the part of the university to hold that the same is not equivalent.

(3.) when the university has treated ssce as equivalent to ii year p.u.c., the candidates who have possessed ssce and fulfilled other requirements shall be admitted to the course. It is clear from Annexure c that the petitioner has secured 64 marks in physics, 52 marks in chemistry, 35 marks in mathematics and 45 marks (16 marks in theory and 29 marks in practical) in biology. Even if the petitioner has failed in biology theory which resulted in her failure in biology, she has passed by securing more marks in other subjects. According to the ssce regulations, to declare a student passed he/she must have passed in 3 subjects out of 4. In the instant case, out of 4 electjves, except biology she has passed in 3 subjects. If these are counted independently or aggregate, the result is that she has passed. It was tightly declared by the central board of education in Annexure-D that to pass the all India senior school certificate examination it is essential to pass one compulsory language, three electivcs and subject(s) of internal assessment as per the cbse curriculum. According to Sri Shelly, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the time of admission everything was made clear including her possessing the requisite qualification which entitled her to seek admission to I year b.d.s. merely because she had not secured pass marks in biology, it cannot be said that she failed in ssce. According to him, neither the Act, ordinance nor the regulations said that fail in one subject out of 4 electives of ssce conducted by cbse disentitles a candidate to seek admission for technical or medical course in the state of karnataka. In support of his contentions Sri Shetty also make references to the regulations issued by the 1st respondent/university relating to admission to b.d.s. course. The relevant portions will be dealt with a little later. For these reasons, he submits that there is neither arbitrariness nor illegality in the admission of the petitioner to I year b.d.s. course. His further contention is that, when once a candidate is admitted on the basis of the marks card produced that too in the absence of any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the candidate, it is not proper either on the part of the college or on the part of the university to open its eyes at a later stage and find out that the student is not entitled for admission that too when he/she has prosecuted studies for several years and to cancel the admission. To put it in other words, his contention is that the university or the college is estopped from cancelling the admission of the petitioner to I year bds course at a later stage when she has been prosecuting her studies for several years, except on grounds of fraud and misrepresentation on her part. In support of this contentions, Sri Shetty relies on the following authorities: (1) Santhan Gauda v Berhampur University and others, AIR 1990 SC 1075 wherein the Supreme Court has held thus: