SUMANA ARORA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Ms. Suman Arora is a Medical student and is also a national level tennis player of some proficiency. She had applied for admission to the Medical College in the year 1994 for the M.B.B.S. Course and had subsequently sought admission under the free seats that are available to sports persons of outstanding merit. In the meanwhile, since she is also a merited student she was granted admission to the M.S. Ramaiah Medical College at Bangalore on payment of the prescribed fees which admission was accepted. On that very day she received an intimation that she had been selected for one of the free seats under the Sports Category and was therefore asked to complete the requisite formalities. Pursuant to this, the authorities allotted her a free seat at the Medical College at Gulbarga. The petitioner represented against this allotment by pointing out that she is a tennis player who has taken part in tournaments at the national level that the coaching facilities required for her are available only in Bangalore and she also brought to the notice of the authorities two other aspects of the matter namely that the tournaments in which she is required to take part are one of the standard of proficiency that she has achieved which are held in Bangalore and that players of the requisite high skills at those levels would not be available at Gulbarga and that therefore, the authorities should allot her a seat in any of the colleges at Bangalore. This application was rejected on the ground that after doing the evaluation of the various students who are eligible for the free seats, that there were six others who were higher in the merit list than the petitioner and that the three available seats at Bangalore had already been allotted to the first three and that consequently, it was not possible to accommodate the petitioner at Bangalore. The petitioner continued to pursue her studies at the Ramaiah College at Bangalore as a paid student and has challenged the decision of the authorities principally on the ground that the relevant rules under which the selection process has been done are arbitrary and unreasonable and that the same are required to be struck done and further more, that these rules completely ignore certain relevant aspects that are material for the selection process. The relief asked for is that the petitioner must be allotted one of the three seats at Bangalore by following the correct procedure.

(2.) The petition has been resisted by the respondents who contend that the selection process is in accordance with the rules and that the rules as framed are rational and reasonable. The order sheet indicates that this petition has been pending in this Court since November 1994 which is approximately 15 months and that during this long period that respondent were afforded a number of opportunities to file their reply which they have not availed of. However, in order to avoid any injustice to the respondents. I have taken note of the case made out by them in the parawise replies and I have also heard the learned Government Advocate in the matter.

(3.) The petitioner's learned advocate has contended that these are professional causes and that the mode of selection prescribes that merit shall be the predominant consideration at all levels. He has relied on the definition which prescribes the manner in which the merit criteria is to be assessed as it appears in Rule 6. He submits that as far as Rule 12 is concerned, though sub-category(c) provides for the reservation of seats for sports persons of outstanding merits, that when it comes to the subsequent provisions contained in Note 2(1) to Rule 12(1) of the Karnataka Selection of Candidates of Admission to Engineering, Medical, Dental, Pharmacy and Nursing Courses Rules 1993, that the merit requirement has been bypassed. I need to mention here that on 29h July 1994 certain amendments were brought about and Rule 10 was amended introducing Sub-rule (2) which reads as follows: