J DAYANAND Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the petitioner passed second p.u.c. examination held by the pre-university board of the State of Karnataka in the month of march/april, 1992 securing 87% of marks in his optional subjects (p.c.b.). He appeared for common entrance examination held by the government of Karnataka in april, 1992 and secured marks as under: (a) physics - 57.50% out of 60% (b)chemistry - 58.75% out of 60% (c)biology - 58.75% out of 60% total : 175 out of 180 he secured 91.90% average marks in the p.u.c. and entrance examination. His ranking is no. 545 in the rank list. The petitioner sought admission to the I year m.b.b.s. course for the year 1992-93 in the general merit category. It is submitted that admissions to the I year m.b.b.s. course in Karnataka are governed by the provisions contained in the Rules called "the Karnataka medical colleges (selection of candidates for admission to I year m.b.b.s. course) rules, 1988 (in short "the rules"). Respondents 1 to 3 are required to follow these Rules strictly in selecting the candidates.

(2.) total number of seats allotted for admission to I yearmbbs in the government quota is 997. The first selection list was published on 13-7-1992 and the rank numbers 1 to 252 were allotted to I year m.b.b.s. in the general merit category in the government quota. Thereafter on 31-7-1992, second list was published and persons holding ranks upto rank number 335 were given admission in that list. Third list was published on 25-8-1992 and the persons holding ranks upto rank number 364 were given admission in general merit category in the government quota. The true copies of those lists are produced at annexures c, d and e. It is the contention of the petitioner that the authorities have given admission to I year m.b.b.s. course to the students who have secured lesser percentage of marks than the petitioner and have been given admission in the general merit category in the government quota. It is further submitted that at least 25 students have, been given admission, but the petitioner could ascertain the particulars of only in respect of 8 students who he has impleaded as respondents 4 to 11. The following list shows the ranking, category and the colleges to which they are allotted: <frm>anish1.htm</frm> the petitioner further contended that respondent-6, M.V. Venkatesh has secured 63% marks in the p.u.c. and he was admitted on 29-9-1992. Respondent-7, rajeswari secured 82.6% and she was admitted on 29-9-1992. So also respondent-8, shyamsunder secured 64% and his rank number is 5466 in the rank list and he was admitted on 28-9-1992. True copies of the intimation of selection of some of the respondents are produced at annexures f, g & h.

(3.) it is the case of the petitioner that respondents 12 to 14have been given admission without following the procedure and the rules. The selection of respondents 4 to 11 is arbitrary and illegal and opposed to rules. It is his case that he had secured 91.90% marks and holds the rank number 545 in the rank list and he was denied admission in high-handed and arbitrary manner.