M SALEEMAMJAD Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner hails from andhra pradesh. He was selected on a scholarship for study in a school at bellary in karnataka, where he studied for 5 years and passed bis 12th standard examination from the central board of secondary education. He applied for admission against a medical seat and appeared in the get examination in which he emerged at rank No. 87 in the over all rank list. He wanted his case to be considered for a free seat as a Karnataka student on the basis that he had studied in Karnataka for a period of 5 years. This the authorities were not prepared to do for according to the rules regulating the admissions to such courses, and as per the amendment brought to the said rules in the year 1996, unless a student has studied in Karnataka for a period of seven years, he is not qualified to be considered as a Karnataka student eligible for admission against a free seat. Aggrieved the petitioner filed W. P. No. 20875 of 1996 claiming a mandamas from this court on the ground that he was entitled to be admitted against the Karnataka students category on account of his having studied here for a period of 5 years. This court however did not find favour with this submission and held that the petitioner was entitled to be considered only against 15% seats reserved for non Karnataka students subject to his eligibility. The court also repelled the challenge to the Rule on the ground of the same being arbitrary. The order passed by this court is brief and may be reproduced in extenso. order

(2.) UNDETERRED the petitioner has filed the present writ petition reiterating the relevant facts as also the plea urged by him previously. The only improvement he has now made in the writ petition is in the relief sought in which he has prayed for striking down amendment to rule 4 (1) brought about by notification dated 19th may, 1996. He has also questioned the amendment to Rule 2 (4 ). Clause (1) of Rule 4 of the Karnataka rules, 1993 as violative of article 14.

(3.) MR. Veerabhadrappa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the dismissal of the earlier writ petition notwithstanding, the present writ petition was maintainable. He submitted that the material difference between the position as it existed on the date the earlier order was passed and the date the present writ petition was filed was that the Supreme Court had on 9th august, 1996 passed an order in t. m. a. pai foundation's case, directing that the norms, terms and condition governing admission to medical colleges for the previous year shall continue to remain applicable even for the academic session 96-97. this order according to the learned counsel justified the filing of the present writ petition no matter the essential facts on which the previous writ petition filed are identical to the present. I am not however impressed by this submission. In t. m. a. pai foundation v state of Karnataka , the suprenafe court gave certain directions for purposes of admission to medical and other colleges for academic year 1995-96. The direction which is for our purposes relevant, is found in para 20 (3) (a) which reads thus: