GEETHA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) in All these writ petitions the petitioners have challenged the validity of rule 3(1)(b) of the Karnataka selection of candidates for admission to engineering, medical, dental, pharmacy and nursing courses rules, 1993 ('the rules* for short). The challenge is confined to the restriction as to the passing of p.u.c. during the period not exceeding two years prior to the year in which application is made for entrance test.

(2.) in other words, by virtue of this rule 3(1)(b) in the case of commonentrance test held during may 1993, only those who have passed p.u.c.after 1-4-91 would be eligible. The relevant Rules read as follows:

(3.) it was contended before me by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the above restriction regarding the year for having passed the p.u.c. or its equivalent examination is totally arbitrary and unreasonable and therefore violative of Article 14 of the constitution of india. The learned counsel pointed out that in the instant case why should a candidate who has passed p.u.c. in the year 1989 or 1990 should be deprived of an opportunity to appear for the entrance test and join the professional course. The professional courses impart education in attractive subjects like medicine, engineering, dental, pharmacy, nursing, etc. The rule cannot deprive a person to prosecute his studies and gain knowledge and if possible engage himself in a convenient profession in future. This apart it was contended that the Rules as such nowhere prescribes any age limit to join the professional courses and if so, so long as the person is not barred on the ground of age he must have an opportunity to compete with everyone else. The merit is measured by the marks obtained at the common entrance test and the marks obtained at the p.u.c. or equivalent examination. All meritorious students should be treated equally and there should be equal opportunity to candidates to compete and claim a proper place in the merit list, was the contention. In addition to this there is also a further contention advanced stating that by virtue of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in unnikrishnan's case even the payment seats are now to be selected on the basis of inter se comparative merit of the candidates and the merit is determined on the basis of the common entrance test and the marks obtained at the qualifying examination. All these years many aspiring candidates could not purchase seats by paying capitation fee but after the recent decision of the Supreme Court the payment seats are available on payment of reasonable tuition fee and the candidates are to be selected on the basis of their inter se comparative merit and if so there should be an extended opportunity for the candidates who can afford to pay higher tuition fee when selected to the payment seats.