RAJENDRA PRASAD MATHUR Vs. KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals by special leave are directed against an Order passed by a division Bench of the Karnataka High court summarily rejecting writ appeals preferred by several students against a common judgment delivered by Justice rama Jois dismissing the writ petitions filed by them challenging the cancellation of their admission by the Karnataka university. The facts giving rise to these appeals are few and may be briefly stated as follows.

(2.) R. P. Mathur, the appellant in civil Appeal No. 10610 of 1983 passed higher Secondary Examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Examination, Rajasthan and applied for admission to the first year of the Engineering degree course in Shri Dharmasthala manjunatheswara College of Engineering and Technology for the academic year 1981-82. Shri Dharmasthala Manjunatheswara College of Engineering and technology is a private Engineering college affiliated to the Karnataka University and admission to the first year of the Engineering Degree course in this college was, therefore, governed by the rules for admission made by the Karnataka University. On 11th Aug. 1980, the Vice-Chancellor in exercise of the emergency powers conferred upon him by section 12 (5) of the Karnataka Universities Act issued an order prescribing, inter alia, condition of eligibility for admission to the first year of the engineering Degree Course. This Order made by the Vice-Chancellor was approved by the Academic Council and the syndicate and it governed admissions to be made to the first year of the Engineering Degree course in the academic year 1981-82 and subsequent years. The condition of eligibility provided by this order was as follows :"candidates shall have passed the two-year pre-university examination of the pre-university education board. Bangalore or an examination held by any other Board or University recognised as equivalent to it with English as one of the languages and Physics, chemistry and Mathematics as optional subjects with the necessary percentage of marks laid down by the university at the time of admission. A student who has passed B. Sc. Examination with Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics and secured not less than 50% of the aggregate of Physics, chemistry and Mathematics, is also eligible for admission. However, he cannot claim exemption of any sort. "now, the Higher Secondary Examination in the State of Rajasthan required only 11 years schooling. The State of rajasthan did not follow the pattern of 10+2 where SSLC Examination is held after 10 years schooling followed by study for a period of two years, whether in school or in college, which is termed as Intermediate course at some places and Pre-University course at others. However, so far as the State of Karnataka is concerned, it followed the pattern of 10 + 2 and after 10 years' schooling followed by SSLC Examination, it provided for a two-year Pre-University course culminating in an examination held by the Pre-University Education board. Obviously, therefore, the Higher secondary School Examination after 11 years schooling in the State of Rajasthan could not be regarded as equivalent to the examination held by the Pre-University Education Board after 10 + 2 in the state of Karnataka and this non equ valence was not seriously disputed on behalf of the appellant. R. P. Mathur was clearly, in the circumstances not eligible for admission to the Engineering decree Course. Even so, he was admitted by the Dharmasthala Manjunathes-wara College of Engineering and Technology for the academic year 1981-82. He completed the first year and appeared in the examination held in July 1982 but he failed in four subjects and he had, therefore, to take a supplementary examination in Jan. 1983 when he cleared two more subjects and the remaining two subjects were cleared by him in the examination held in June 1983. He also simultaneously appeared in the second year examination in June 1983 but again he failed to clear four subjects and he had to appear in the supplementary examination in Dec. 1983 when he passed in the 2nd class. Whilst he was studying for the second year, his admission was disapproved by the Karnataka University in a letter dated 7th April 1983 addressed by the Registrar to the Principal of the Dharmasthala manjunatheswara College of Engineering and Technology. This letter was in the following terms:"the matter has been examined carefully. The two candidates (that is, R. P. Mathur and one Abhay Kumar jain) have passed the H. S. C. Examination of the H. E. F. Board and H. S. M. Board, Rajasthan which is equivalent to 11 years schooling. As per our eligibility requirements, a candidate must have passed two year pre-university examination of the Pre-University examination Board, Bangalore or an examination held by any other Board or university recognised as equivalent to it. As per our eligibility requirement. H. S. C. examination of 11 years duration is not considered as equivalent to our two year pre-university examination as the pattern of education in our state is 10 years plus two years, while it is 11 years schooling in Rajasthan State. Therefore, the two candidates (1) Sri R. P. Mathur and (2) Sri Abhay Kumar Jain are not eligible for admission to the first year p. E. Course during the year 1981-82 as per our eligibility rules. Candidates may be informed accordingly. "this decision of the Karnataka University was communicated to R. P. Mathur by the Principal of the College. He, thereupon filed Writ Petition No. 7444 of 1983 in the High Court of karnataka challenging the cancellation of his admission by the Karnataka University.

(3.) It appears that when the writ petition was admitted by a' learned single Judge of the High Court, an interim Order was made allowing R. P. Mathur to continue his studies in Shri dharmasthala Manjunatheswara College of Engineering and Technology and it was as a result of this interim Order that r. P. Mathur could appear in the supplementary examination for the first year held in June 1983 and the regular examination for the second year held in June 1983. The writ petition was directed to be heard at an early date and it came up for hearing before Justice rama Jois sitting as a Single Judge.