C NAGANNA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition the petitioner has prayed that this Hon'ble Court my be pleased to issue the writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned rules published vide, Notification No. ED. 33 TA SE VI 92, dated 10-3-1993, copy of which is Annexure-A to the writ petition and to grant such further reliefs as this Court deems fit.

(2.) Annexre-A to the petition is the notification publishing the Rules made by the Government in exercise of its powers under S. 14(1) of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984, hereinafter described as the Act 37 of 1984. The petitioner claims himself to be an academician, who have been espousing the cause of the students and alleges that he espouses the cause of students who cannot raise their voice of their own for want of funds or for lack of proper counselling and information. The petitioner has filed this petition as per allegations in para-2, as public interest litigation. Para-2 of the writ petition reads as under

(3.) The petitioner's case is that the Apex Court has pronounced judgment to put an end to the commercialisation of education and thereby discretionary power of management of professional colleges to admit the less meritorious students at the cost of more meritorious ones is taken away. The petitioner has further alleged that the Apex Court has held that the respective State Governments must be the sole machinery for processing the admissions based on merit for the first 50 per cent seats and then on the basis of merit-cum-means for the remaining 50 per cent of seats. According to the petitioner the first respondent issued notification on 10-3-1993, publishing the Admission Rules to Engineering, Medical, Dental, Pharmacy and Nursing Courses. The petitioner has annexed the xerox copy of the notification Annexure-A. The petitioner's further case is that according to the petitioner, Annexure-A shows that the first respondent has virtually circumvented the judgment of the Supreme Court on several counts and there are flaws and lacunae in it. So the petitioner has filed this petition, challenging the rules contained in Annexure-A to the writ petition.