UMESH HIREMATH Vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner appeared in the common entrance test conducted by the CET Cell for admissions to Medical and Engineering Colleges in the state. He was allotted a Medical seat in A1 Ameen College at Bijapur in the payment category, which allotment was subsequently cancelled pursuant to the directions issued by the Supreme Court, and on the ground that seat allotted to the petitioner was in excess of the intake capacity of the College. He was thereafter granted admission against an Engineering seat in what is known as BOT College, Davanagere, where he is presently undergoing the Course. In the meantime certain casual vacancies appear to have occurred in the Medical Colleges which were notified by the CET Cell inviting only such candidates for counselling as had not already secured admission in any Course. Although the petitioner had been allotted an Engineering seat, he appears to have approached the cet Cell for consideration against one of such vacancies. The Cell declined that request on the ground that the petitioner having been admitted to one of the Engineering Colleges was ineligible for allotment of a casual vacancy in terms of Rule 18 (ix) of Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Engineering, Medical and Dental Courses Rules, 1997. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition questioning the constitutional validity of the rule aforementioned and for a mandamus directing the respondents to allot a Medical seat in his favour.

(2.) COUNSEL appearing for the petitioner contended that the refusal of the CET Cell to consider the petitioner's claim for admission against one of the casual vacancies was unjustified and in violation of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. He urged that once a vacancy occurred, all such candidates as were eligible for admission had a valuable right of consideration against the same. The admission of candidates with lesser merit than the petitioner against such vacancies, was according to the learned Counsel, unjust, unfair and offensive with equality clause, not could the admission of the petitioner to the Engineering College be a valid ground for excluding him from consideration against any such vacancies.

(3.) MR. Manjunath, Counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that Rule 18 of the Rules mentioned earlier excluded from consideration such of the candidates as had already been admitted against any seat in any Medical or Engineering College. Exclusion of such candidates from consideration was, according to the learned counsel, necessary in order to avoid the process of filling up the vacancies becoming unending. He urged that if all vacancies that become available in both Medical and Engineering Colleges, were to be filled up after giving an opportunity to every candidate, who is desirous of getting admitted against the same, it will become difficult to conclude the process within a reasonable time. Rule 18 (ix) was therefore framed with a view to preventing any such anomaly, which is bound to affect the academic programme in the colleges to the prejudice of those, admitted to the same. He urged that since the casual vacancies, had already been filled and none was presently available against which the petitioner could be considered, the entire grievance had become academic.