Karnataka High Court
Ms.Suryavanshi Revti Rudhyanath vs State Of Karnataka on 8 July, 2021
Author: Krishna S. Yerur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION No.111236/2019 (EDN-EX)
C/W. WRIT PETITION NO.111235/2019 (EDN-EX)
In W.P. No.111236/2019:
BETWEEN:
1. Ms. Suryavanshi Revti Rudhyanath,
Age 20 years, Occ: I years student,
Shri B.V.V. Sangha's P.M. Nadagouda
Memorial Dental College & Hospital,
Bagalkot-587101.
2. Ms. Gaikwad Shruti Abhinandan,
Age 19 years, Occ: I year student,
Shri B.V.V. Sangha's P.M. Nadagouda
Memorial Dental College & Hospital,
Bagalkot-587101.
3. Ms. Habib Vaibhavi Anand,
Age 19 years, Occ: I year student,
Shri B.V.V. Sangha's P.M. Nadagouda
Memorial Dental College & Hospital,
Bagalkot-587101.
4. Ms. Fouziya Shekhafariddin Nadaf,
Age 22 years, Occ: I year student,
:2:
Shri B.V.V. Sangha's P.M. Nadagouda
Memorial Dental College & Hospital,
Bagalkot-587101.
5. Mr. Chankeshwar Sammed Ravindrakumar,
Age 19 years, Occ: I year student,
Shri B.V.V. Sangha's P.M. Nadagouda
Memorial Dental College & Hospital,
Bagalkot-587101.
6. Shri B.V.V. Sangha's P.M. Nadagouda
Memorial Dental College & Hospital,
Bagalkot-587101,
Rep. by its Principal,
Dr. Shreenivas S. Vanaki,
Age 51 years.
... Petitioners
(By Shri M.R. Nayak, Sr. Counsel for
Shri C.S. Shettar, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
By its Principal Secretary,
Medical Education,
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare,
Vikasa Soudha, Bengaluru-560001.
2. Rajiv Gandhi University of Heath Sciences,
4th 'T' Block, Jayanagar,
Bangalore-560 041,
Rep. by its Registrar.
3. Karnataka Examination Authority,
Sampige Road, 18th Cross,
Malleshwaram, Bengaluru-560012,
Rep. by its Executive Director.
4. The Dental Council of India,
Iwan-e-Galib Marg, Kotla Road,
New Delhi-110 002,
:3:
Rep. by its Secretary.
... Respondents
(By Shri Shri V.S. Kalasurmath, HCGP for R1;
Shri Gangadhar J.M., Adv. for R2;
Shri R.M. Kulkarni, Adv. for R3;
Notice to R4 is dispensed with)
This Writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of
mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction
directing the respondents to declare that the admissions
granted to petitioner Nos.1 to 5 as valid and that they are
entitled to continuation of their studies by approving her
admissions & etc.
In W.P. No.111235/2019:
BETWEEN:
1. Manasi D/o.Milind Dixit,
Age 21 years, Occ: 1st years Student,
Maratha Mandal's Nathijirao
G. Halgekar Institute of Dental
Sciences & Research Centre,
Bengalum, R.S. No.47A/2,
Bauxite Road, Belagavi-590110.
2. Maratha Mandal's Nathijirao
G. Halgekar Institute of Dental
Sciences & Research Centre,
Belagavi, R.S. No.47A2,
Bauxite Road, Belagavi-590110,
Rep. by its Principal,
Dr. Ramakanth Sanjeev Nayak,
Age 53 years.
... Petitioners
(By Shri M.R. Nayak, Sr. Counsel for
Shri Rakesh Bilki, Advocate)
:4:
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
By its Principal Secretary,
Medical Education,
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare,
Vikasa Soudha, Bengaluru-560001.
2. Rajiv Gandhi University of Heath Sciences,
4th 'T' Block, Jayanagar,
Bangalore-560 041,
Rep. by its Registrar.
3. Karnataka Examination Authority,
Sampige Road, 18th Cross,
Malleshwaram, Bengaluru-560012,
Rep. by its Executive Director.
4. The Dental Council of India,
Iwan-e-Galib Marg, Kotla Road,
New Delhi-110 002,
Rep. by its Secretary.
... Respondents
(By Shri Shri V.S. Kalasurmath, HCGP for R1;
Shri Gangadhar J.M., Adv. for R2;
Shri R.M. Kulkarni, Adv. for R3;
Notice to R4 is dispensed with)
This Writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of
mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction
directing the respondents to declare that the admissions
granted to petitioner No.1 as valid and that she is entitled
to continuation of her studies by approving her admissions
& etc.
These Writ Petitions coming on for further hearing,
this day, Krishna S.Dixit, J, made the following:
:5:
ORDER
The grievance of the petitioner-students in both these
cases is as to non-approval of their admissions by the
respondent Health University on the ground of their
candidature having not been sponsored by the respondent
Karnataka Examination Authority in terms of the extant
Rules. The respondents having entered appearance through
their respective advocates oppose the writ petitions.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and having perused the case papers, we are inclined to
grant relief to these poor students as a one time measure
and with a rider that this judgment shall not be used as a
precedent, inasmuch as their case is substantially covered
by the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court
(Kalaburagi) in W.P. No.203589-203603/2015 (EDN-AD)
and other connected matters disposed of on 04.09.2020; it
is not disputed at the Bar that all these petitioners have
taken NEET Examination successfully.
3. The Coordinate Bench at paragraph Nos.12 & 13
of its judgment in more or less a similar fact matrix has
observed as under:
"12. At the fag end of the hearing,
learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that one of the students ie petitioner No.2
namely, Mr.Mohammed Asif S/o Mohamed
Yousuf Khamarunnisa in W.P.Nos.202267-
2271/2016 has been granted admission by the
petitioner-College on the basis of his merit
assessed in CET and that he was mistakenly
arrayed as a party; he further submits that his
claim for approval for admission needs to be
favoured since the stated ground for non-
approval is non-existent so far as this petitioner
is concerned; the respondents are not in a
position to say anything on this; suffice it to
state that, if the credentials of this petitioner
are found to be true, then there would be no
impediment for granting approval to his
admission.
13. The admission of petitioner No.2
namely, Mr.Mohammed Asif S/o Mohammed
Yousuf Khamarunnisa in WP No.202267-
2271/2016 to the Dental Course for the
academic years in question allegedly having
been admitted after CET Shall be considered for
approval by the respondent-University within
two months if his asserted credentials are found
correct after due verification and that in his case
there shall be no requirement of any
undertaking being taken for rendering rural
service. These observations will apply to any
other candidate whose merit has been assessed
under CET."
In the above circumstances, these writ petitions
succeed; a writ of mandamus issues directing the
respondents to treat the admissions of the petitioners to the
Course as being regular with a further direction to the
respondent Health University to approve with retrospective
effect these admissions as a one time measure, within a
period of six weeks.
It hardly needs to be stated that all the respondents
shall take all the steps as are necessary in the matter, by
coordinating/cooperating with each other; the petitioners
shall on solicitation furnish all documents required for the
grant of approval and shall pay the requisite fees, if any.
Delay if brooked in accomplishing the mandated task
shall be viewed seriously, should the petitioners bring a
case of contempt of this Court and that the erring
respondents run the risk of paying heavy costs apart from
incurring other penal action.
Costs now made easy.
SD/-
JUDGE
SD/-
JUDGE
Vnp*
