N DEEPAK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions are before us on a reference made under Section 9 of the Karnataka High Court Act.

(2.) The petitioners in all these cases are students who, having passed the Pre-University Course, had taken Common Entrance Test (C.E.T) with a view to join professional courses, viz., Engineering, Medical and Dental courses. In the result announced by the Special Officer, Common Entrance Test Cell (C.E.T. Cell), the respective ranking of the candidates for Engineering, Medical and Dental courses was published in the newspapers. The candidates were, inter alia, intimated procedure under which a spot selection of the candidates for the aforesaid courses would be made. The petitioners were called for counselling for admission to Engineering couse in the first instance and, upon being selected for the first year B.E. course in the free seats category, a provisional admission order was issued to them on the same date having regard to the choice of the discipline and the college made by the candidates for the said course. Subsequently, in response to the publication calling upon the candidates coming within the specified rankings to appeal before the Spl. Officer, C.E.T. Cell, for counselling regarding selection to the first year M.B.B.S. course, the petitioners approached the venue where the selection was being made. But they were turned out and their claim for consideration of the free medical seat was not entertained on the ground that they were already selected for the B.E. course. It transpires that on the respective dates when the petitioners appeared for counselling to claim a medical seat, and subsequently, a number of students having a lower ranking than the petitioners were selected to the Medical/ Dental course in the free seat quota. The petitioners have, therefore, challenged the validity of Rules 10 and 11 of the 'Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Engineering, Medical, Dental, Pharmacy and Nursing Courses Rules, 1993 (as amended by notification dated 22-6-1994) ('the Rules' for short) and the instructions issued by the C.E.T. Cell in pursuance thereof as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and sought for a writ of mandamus directing the C.E.T. Cell to consider their cases for admission to the M.B.B.S. course for the academic year 1994-95.

(3.) On behalf of the petitioners, Sriyuths B. Veerabhadrappa, H. K. Vasudeva Reddy and M. C. Narasimhan among others, led the main arguments which were adopted in the other cases. The following contentions are urged, viz. (i) That Rules 10 and 11 of the Rules are contrary to the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in the case of "Unni Krishnan J. P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh", AIR 1993 SC 2178; (ii) That the instructions issued by the C.E.T. Cell regarding the procedure for counselling and spot selection are not only without authority of law, but contrary to Rules 9 to 11 of the Rules.