SAPAN SHANKAR Vs. DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the appellant was the writ petitioner before the learned single judge. He has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the order rendered by the learned single judge on 29-11-1993 dismissing his writ petition. For the sake of convenience we will refer to the appellant as the petitioner and the respondents as the original respondents in later part of this judgment.

(2.) the petitioner is a student who has completed second yearpre-university course. He sought for admission to medical course in the State of Karnataka for the year 1993-94, under reserved category as made available under rule 12 of the Karnataka selection of the candidates for admission to engineering, medical, pharmacy, dental and nursing courses, rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 'rules') these Rules are promulgated by the State of Karnataka and they govern such admissions.

(3.) the petitioner's case is that he falls in the reserved category, being a candidate who possessed 'b' certificate under ncc. It is his contention that he has got more number of ncc points-cum-marks showing his proficiency in ncc activities as compared to other students who have been admitted in this reserved category. He has scored 95 marks and has obtained the requisite ncc 'b' certificate. Respondents 4 and 5 who are joined in this appeal had obtained similar such ncc 'b' certificates but had got lesser number of marks as compared to appellant for ncc activities. They had got 70 marks each. Thus, according to the petitioner he was entitled to be given admission on the reserved category (12(1)(i)(a) of the rules) in preference to respondents 4 and 5. Petitioner submitted that instead of adopting the correct criterion for judging the eligibility of concerned students for such reserved category the respondent-authorities proceeded on a wrong premise, namely that even for ranking of eligible students .in this reserved category their marks in the entrance test have also to be taken into consideration. Merely because the appellant had got lesser marks in the entrance test as compared to the newly added respondents 4 & 5, he was denied admission to the medical course from this reserved category. We are told that as in All there were eleven such reserved seats, eleven students in the aforesaid category were selected for admission to first mbbs course, under ncc quota during 1993-94. The said list is annexed as annexure-h. It is the contention of the petitioner that if rule 12 was correctly interpreted by the authorities he would have been included as one of the selected candidates in the said list and would have been one of the selected eleven candidates at annexure-h as he had got 95 ncc points-cum-marks in ncc and students listed at serial nos. 1 and 4 viz., present respondents 4 & 5 were required to have been listed at the bottom of the list with the result that one of them would have been denied admission instead of admission being denied to the petitioner. It was further contended by the petitioner that while applying the very same rule 12 for governing admissions to the engineering course for the same year the respondent-authorities have applied correct test and correct interpretation of the rule as canvassed by the petitioner and granted admissions to first year b.e. degree course under ncc quota, purely on the basis of their performance in ncc, by only relying on ncc points and not considering marks obtained by concerned students in the entrance test. That aspect is sought to be brought out by placing reliance on the notification issued by the directorate of technical education, Karnataka state, annexed at annexure-j of the petition.