Karnataka High Court
Navodaya Medical College vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 15 March, 2022
Bench: K.Somashekar, Anant Ramanath Hegde
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2022
R
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO.200365/2022 (EDN-MED)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.200345/2022 (EDN-MED)
IN W.P.NO.200365/2022
BETWEEN:
NAVODAYA MEDICAL COLLEGE
NAVODAYA NAGAR,
RAICHUR - 584 103,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL
DR B.VIJAYCHANDRA
S/O LATE SRI BALACHAKRISHNAN,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI MADHU SUDAN R.NAIK, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SURAJ NAIK, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
(MEDICAL EDUCATION), M.S.BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560001.
2. DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION,
ANAND RAO CIRCLE,
BENGALURU -560 009.
3. KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY,
18TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD,
MALLESHWARAM WEST,
BENGALURU - 560 012,
REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.
4. HYDERABAD KARNATAKA SPECIAL CELL,
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE
REFORMS,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
5. ASSOCIATION OF MINORITY PROFESSIONAL COLLEGES
IN KARNATAKA,
UNIT NO.205, LAKSHMI APARTMENTS,
NO.6, CORNWELL ROAD, LANGFORD GARDEN,
RICHMOND TOWN, BANGALORE - 560 025,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
... RESPONDENTS
(SRI SUBRAMANYA, AGA FOR
SRI VIRANGOUDA BIRADAR, AGA FOR R1, R2 & R4;
SRI N.K.RAMESH AND SRI BASAVARAJ R.MATH ADVOCATES
FOR R3
SRI S.S.MAMADAPUR ADVOCATE FOR R5)
3
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO -
A) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, OR
ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION,
DECLARING THE ACTION OF THE RESPONDENTS OF
REVISING THE SEAT MATRIX FOR ADMISSION TO UNDER
GRADUATE COURSES IN MEDICINE FOR THE PURPOSE OF
CATEGORIZING CERTAIN SEATS AS 'MEH
CATEGORY'/INCLUSION OF SEATS INTO THE SAID "MEH
CATEGORY", IN THE REVISED SEAT MATRIX PUBLISHED ON
31.01.2022 (VIDE ANNEXURE L) ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.3 AS HIGHLY ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND
VIOLATIVE OF THE PETITIONER'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
UNDER ARTICLE 30(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION.
B) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND
QUASH THE REVISED SEAT MATRIX PUBLISHED BY
RESPONDENT NO. 3 DATED 31.01.2022 (VIDE ANNEXURE
L1) INSOFAR AS IT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CATEGORIZING
CERTAIN SEATS AS 'MEH CATEGORY '/INCLUSION OF SEATS
INTO THE SAID "MEH CATEGORY" ETC.
IN W.P.NO.200345/2022
BETWEEN:
NAVODAYA MEDICAL COLLEGE
NAVODAYA NAGAR,
RAICHUR - 584 103,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL
DR B.VIJAYCHANDRA
S/O LATE SRI BALACHAKRISHNAN,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI MADHU SUDAN R.NAIK, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SURAJ NAIK, ADVOCATE)
4
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
(MEDICAL EDUCATION), M.S.BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560001.
2. DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION,
ANAND RAO CIRCLE,
BENGALURU -560 009.
3. KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY,
18TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD,
MALLESHWARAM WEST,
BENGALURU - 560 012,
REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.
4. HYDERABAD KARNATAKA SPECIAL CELL,
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE
REFORMS,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
5. ASSOCIATION OF MINORITY PROFESSIONAL COLLEGES
IN KARNATAKA,
UNIT NO.205, LAKSHMI APARTMENTS,
NO.6, CORNWELL ROAD, LANGFORD GARDEN,
RICHMOND TOWN, BANGALORE - 560 025,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
... RESPONDENTS
(SRI SUBRAMANYA, AGA FOR
SRI VIRANGOUDA BIRADAR, AGA FOR R1,R2 & R4;
SRI N.K.RAMESH AND SRI BASAVARAJ R.MATH
ADVOCATES FOR R3;
SRI S.S.MAMADAPUR ADVOCATE FOR R5)
5
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO -
A) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, OR
ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION,
DECLARING THE ACTION OF THE RESPONDENTS OF
REVISING THE SEAT MATRIX FOR ADMISSION TO POST
GRADUATE COURSES IN MEDICINE FOR THE PURPOSE OF
CATEGORIZING CERTAIN SEATS AS 'MEH
CATEGORY'/INCLUSION OF SEATS INTO THE SAID "MEH
CATEGORY", IN THE SEAT MATRIX UNDER THE
COMMUNICATION DATED 31.01.2022 (VIDE ANNEXURE L)
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 AS HIGHLY ARBITRARY,
ILLEGAL AND VIOLATIVE OF THE PETITIONER'S
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLE 30(1) OF THE
CONSTITUTION.
B) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND
QUASH THE COMMUNICATION DATED 31.01.2022 ISSUED
BY RESPONDENT NO.3 (VIDE ANNEXURE - L) INSOFAR AS IT
IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CATEGORIZING CERTAIN SEATS AS
'MEH CATEGORY'/INCLUSION OF SEATS INTO THE SAID
"MEH CATEGORY".
C) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND
QUASH THE REVISED SEAT MATRIX PUBLISHED BY
RESPONDENT NO.3 DATED 31.01.2022 (VIDE ANNEXURE L1)
INSOFAR AS IT IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CATEGORIZING
CERTAIN SEATS AS 'MEH CATEGORY'/INCLUSION OF SEATS
INTO THE SAID "MEH CATEGORY" ETC.
THE ABOVE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD ON
07.03.2022, 08.03.2022 AND 11.03.2022 AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR "PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS" THIS DAY, ANANT RAMANATH HEDGE J., MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
6
ORDER
Lack of consensus among the contracting parties to
the consensual agreement dated 19.01.2022, in
interpreting and implementing its terms has brought this
lis before the court.
2. These two writ petitions are filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, by a linguistic minority
educational institution seeking a writ of certiorari as well
as a writ of mandamus. The petitioner is praying to
quash the revised seat matrix for admission to
postgraduate and undergraduate courses in medicine for
the academic year 2021-2022. The petitioner also seeks
a writ of mandamus against the third respondent -
Karnataka Education Authority to direct the third
respondent to hold counselling for admission to a
postgraduate and undergraduate course in Medicine by
allowing eligible Telugu linguistic minority students in the
entire State of Karnataka to apply for postgraduate and
undergraduate seats in Medicine in the petitioner's
institution.
3. In addition, the petitioner has also sought a
declaration that respondent/State has no authority to
classify the seats reserved for Telugu Linguistic minority
students in the petitioner's institution, as the seats
available for admission only to Telugu linguistic minority
students from the Hyderabad-Karnataka region.
However, the claim regarding this prayer is not
considered as a similar question is pending consideration
in W.P. no.20201/2014 and connected matters.
4. The 'consensual agreement' dated
19.01.2022 for the academic year 2021-22, entered into
among the 1st respondent-State, 5th respondent the
Association of Minority Professional Colleges in
Karnataka (for short, 'AMPCK') and Rajiv Gandhi
University of Health Sciences, which is intended to
record the consensus, among the contracting parties, in
respect of seat-sharing arrangement in minority
professional educational institutions, incidentally, is
the cause for the present petition. This is the position at
least between the petitioner institution and the State
when it comes to the allotment of seats in medical
colleges run by the petitioner institution vis-a-vis the
Hyderabad Karnataka region.
5. During the course of the hearing, it was
brought to the notice of the parties to the proceeding
that Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences which is
a party to the consensual agreement is not made a
party to the petitions. It was submitted by the learned
Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, that verdict
of the court, either way, will not affect the rights and
liabilities of said University. This submission is not
opposed by the respondents. Hence Rajiv Gandhi
University of Health Sciences is not insisted to be made
a party.
6. The petitioner in this case, which is a Telugu
linguistic minority institution, is before the court to
enforce its rights under the consensual agreement
referred above. The agreement has statutory flavour
and support in terms of Section 4A of Karnataka
Professional Educational Institutions (Regulations of
Admission and Determination of Fee) Act, 2006
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2006').
7. Writ Petition No.200345/2022 is filed,
questioning Annexure-L, by which the seat matrix
pertaining to the postgraduate course in medicine for
the year 2021-22, published earlier, is withdrawn and a
new seat matrix, revised on 30.01.2022, is introduced.
Relief is also sought to quash Annexure-L1, the revised
seat matrix.
8. Writ Petition No.200365/2022 is filed
questioning Annexure-L the revised seat matrix in the
undergraduate course in medicine.
9. In both the petitions, in addition to above
said reliefs, prayer is also made to issue necessary order
and direction to conduct counselling for undergraduate
as well as postgraduate courses in medicine as per the
earlier seat matrix which was withdrawn. As a result of
the revised seat matrix, only Telugu Linguistic minority
students residing in Hyderabad-Karnataka region are
allowed to apply for admission for the postgraduate
course in medicine in a Linguistic minority institution
located in Hyderabad-Karnataka region. Telugu
Linguistic minority students residing outside Hyderabad
Karnataka region are not allowed to seek admission
under the Telugu Linguistic minority quota in the
petitioner institution.
10. Petitioner institution feels aggrieved by the
said revised seat matrix which according to the
petitioner, takes away the rights of Telugu Linguistic
minority students outside Hyderabad Karnataka region
in the State of Karnataka from seeking admission to
postgraduate and undergraduate courses in medicine in
the petitioner institution and the petitioner institution is
deprived of its right to cater to the interest of Telugu
Linguistic Minorities in the State of Karnataka. Hence the
present petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India.
11. Facts matrix and Regime of Law.
a) Karnataka Professional Educational
Institutions (Regulation of Admission and
Determination of Fee) Act, 2006. ( Act of 2006 )
The above said Act of 2006, provides for regulation
relating to admission and fee structure in professional
educational institutions in the State of Karnataka.
Section 4-A of the Act provides for an agreement
relating to seat-sharing and fee fixation in un-aided
educational institutions.
b) 98th Constitutional Amendment and
Article 371J.
In terms of the 98th Constitutional Amendment,
Article 317J is introduced in the Constitution of India.
Said article confers powers on the President of India to
provide for any special responsibility of the Governor in
respect of Hyderabad-Karnataka region. The
responsibilities are conferred on the Governor, by the
Hon'ble President of India, in the exercise of power
under Article 371J, vide notification dated 24.10.2013.
Acting under the said notification, on 06.11.2013,
pursuant to the order of the Governor, the State
introduced The Karnataka Educational Institutions
(Regulations of Admission in the Hyderabad/Karnataka
Region) (Order-2013) (hereinafter referred to as the
Order, 2013). This order among others provides for
reservation in universities or educational institutions for
the 'local persons' specified in the said order. The
constitutional validity of the said order is under
challenge in Writ Petition No.20201/2014 and connected
matters. Said petitions are pending hearing. Since the
operation Order of 2013 is stayed, its provisions are not
implemented.
c) The Karnataka Professional Educational
Institutions (Recognition of Minority Educational
Institutions Terms and Conditions) (Professional
Education) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as
'the Rules, 2016').
The above-said Rules, 2016 among others provide
for the minimum percentage of students to be admitted
under the linguistic minority quota in the State. Rule 4
prescribes eligibility criteria for recognition. Rule 4(6)
which mandates the minimum percentage of minority
students reads as under:-
"Out of Institution quota in an Institution, not
less than 66% of the students enrolled in the said
Institutions shall belong to persons belonging to the
linguistic or religious minority of the State to
which applicant Institution belongs to."
(emphasis supplied)
d) Consensual agreement dated 19.01.2022 for
seat sharing.
It is stated that the Association of Minority
Professional Colleges in Karnataka which is the
representative body for the Minority professional
educational institutions in Karnataka is entering into a
seat-sharing agreement with the State, every year, and
said the agreement provides for, among certain others,
seat-sharing arrangement in the institutions run by the
members of AMPCK. The State Government and the
Association of unaided professional educational
institutions are enabled under Section 4A of the Act of
2006 to enter into such agreement and such agreement
is termed as 'Consensual Agreement'.
12. It is stated that based on the consensual
agreement dated 19.01.2022 for the academic year
2021-22, the 3rd respondent published the seat matrix
which provided reservations to Telugu linguistic minority
students of the State of Karnataka and said category is
classified as 'ME' category. According to the petitioner,
this seat matrix providing reservations in petitioner
institution to all eligible Telugu linguistic minority
students in the State of Karnataka conforms to the
terms of the consensual agreement. However, in terms
of the impugned order, the said seat matrix is withdrawn
and replaced by the revised seat matrix which provides
reservation in institutions located in the Hyderabad-
Karnataka region, only to eligible Telugu linguistic
minority students from Hyderabad-Karnataka region to
the exclusion of Telugu linguistic minority students from
other parts of Karnataka. The revised seat matrix is
classified as 'MEH'.
13. This Court on 02.02.2022 has passed a stay
order staying all further proceedings under Annexures 'L'
and 'L1' the impugned seat matrix. Subsequently, on an
application filed by the respondents, vide order dated
24.02.2022, the earlier interim order was partially
modified.
14. In response to the notice issued by the court
in this petition, the State has entered appearance and
filed a statement of objection to the interim application.
The Karnataka Education Authority which is respondent
No.2 in this matter has also entered appearance through
its counsel Sri N.K.Ramesh.
15. The preliminary objection of the State to
hear the matter.
16. Learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for the respondent/State raised the
preliminary objection to hear the matter on the premise
that challenge to the Order, 2013 is pending before Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition
No.20201/2014 and connected matters. A submission
was made on behalf of the State to tag this matter along
with the above-mentioned writ petitions and to hear the
petitions simultaneously along with the aforementioned
writ petition and connected matters. This submission on
behalf of the State is made on the premise that the
finding of the court in this petition will have bearing on
the outcome of the above-mentioned writ petition where
larger question relating to the validity of Order, 2013
which applies to Hyderabad Karnataka Region is pending
consideration. This request of the State is not accepted
as this court is of the opinion that the verdict, in this
case, will not decide any questions raised relating to the
constitutional validity of the order of 2013. This court,
in this case, is examining the rights and liabilities of the
parties emerging from the consensual agreement dated
19.01.2022 marked at Annexure-G. Subsequently, the
learned Additional Advocate General Sri Subramanya
appearing for the State would submit that the statement
of objections filed by the State to the interim prayer
should be treated as statement objection to the main
petition.
17. This matter was listed on 07.03.2022 for
orders, awaiting service of notice on 5th
respondent/AMPCK which according to the petitioner is a
formal party and no relief is claimed against it.
Considering the fact that the 2nd round counselling
results are slated to be announced on 8TH March 2022,
and also considering the fact that the issue is concerning
to the students who are seeking admission to
undergraduate and postgraduate courses in medicine
under linguistic minority quota, priority hearing is
accorded and the parties are heard on merits, with the
consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.
18. Submissions of the petitioner.
The learned Senior Counsel Sri Madhusudhan Nayak
appearing for the petitioner canvassed the following
points:
a) The petitioner institution is admittedly a
linguistic minority institution and is having
certain protection under Article 15(6) and 30 of
the Constitution of India and the impugned seat
matrix violates the rights guaranteed under the
aforementioned articles.
b) The institution is established in Karnataka for
the benefit of Telugu linguistic minorities in the
entire State of Karnataka. In terms of Rule 2016
referred above, the institution is under
obligation to reserve a certain specified
percentage of seats (66% of the 55% seats
allotted to the institution) for Telugu speaking
students in Karnataka as such the revised seat
matrix which restricts the reservation only to
Telugu minority students from Hyderabad
Karnataka is illegal and contrary to Rule 4 (6) of
Rules 2016.
c) The State is acting contrary to the terms of the
consensual agreement wherein it has agreed
that institutions have no obligation to reserve
seats under Article 371J quota out of 55% of
seats available at the disposal of the institution.
And State having agreed to fulfil its obligation
under Article 371J, in the seats surrendered by
the institution in favour of the State (20% and
25% for postgraduate and undergraduate
courses respectively) has unilaterally modified
the seat matrix contrary to the terms of the
agreement.
d) Vires of the Order of 2013 passed under
Article 371J of the Constitution of India is called
in question in a batch of writ petitions and those
cases, this court has passed an interim order
staying the operation of the Order of 2013. Thus
there is no law/ policy of the State qua article
371J, in force that would enable the State to
implement its reservation policy as required
under Article 371J.
e) The revised seat matrix seeks to ignore all
meritorious Telugu minority students in the
State of Karnataka who are eligible for
admission to the petition institution which is a
violation of the terms of the consensual
agreement.
19. In support of his contentions the learned
counsel would place reliance on the following
judgments:
1. (2005) 6 SCC 537 - P.A.Inamadar v. the State
of Maharashtra;
2. (2012) 6 SCC 1 - Society for Unaided Private
Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India;
3. (2014) 8 SCC 1 - Pramati Educational and
Cultural Trust v. Union of India;
4. (2010) 8 SCC 49 - Sindi Education Society v.
Chief Secretary;
5. 1974 SC 1397 - Ahamambad Sait Xavier v. the
State of Gujarat.
20. Elaborating on the above said contentions, he
would submit that institution is established to cater to
the needs of the Telugu linguistic minority throughout
the State of Karnataka and its right to admit Telugu
linguistic minority students from the entire state of
Karnataka is protected under the Constitution and that
cannot be meddled by the State. The petitioner
institution being a Telugu linguistic minority institution
enjoys certain protections guaranteed under Articles
15(5) and (6) and 30 of the Constitution of India. It is
submitted that Article 371J is inserted in the
Constitution by way of an amendment to the
constitution. In terms of the mandate of the said article,
the governor of the State has passed an order in the
year 2013 which among others provides for certain
reservations in educational institutions in Hyderabad
Karnataka Region. However, admittedly the operation
of the said order is stayed by the co-ordinate bench of
this court. Thus according to the petitioner, there is no
reservation policy in place, pursuant to the mandate of
Article 371J, for implementation. Under these
circumstances, it is his submission that the right of the
petitioner institution to admit Telugu linguistic minority
students who seek admission from other region of the
State of Karnataka cannot be meddled or interfered with
by the State.
21. The learned counsel referred to Clauses in
paragraph 3, in the consensual agreement :
"c) (i) 20% "Government Seats (G)" of the total
intake will be filled up by the Government as per
its admission policy, including reservation of
seats for the Scheduled Castes /Scheduled Tribe
and other backward classes and under Article
371J of the Constitution of India.
(ii) 55% "Private Seats (P)" of the total intake of
any institution shall be filled by General Merit
candidates on basis of NEET ranking through
counselling conducted by KEA, provided that in
this 5% intake of the institution, 66% seats shall
be filled up from the respective minority
students as formulated in the Karnataka
Professional Education Institutions (Recognition
of Minority Educational Institutions Terms and
Conditions) Professional Education) Rules, 2016
and in case of non-availability of respective
minority students remaining seats shall be filled
by General Merit candidates on basis of NEET
ranking. Out of the remaining 34% seats, not
less than 50% of these seats shall be filled by
the Karnataka students and if a sufficient
number of Karnataka students are not available,
such seats may be filled by others."
xxx
xxx
"c. In view of the making over of 20% of its total
available seats in PG Courses, the Government
of Karnataka, hereby exempts the members of
the AMPCK from the obligation, if any of
providing for reservation for either SCs, STs or
other backwards classes separately, since the
Government of Karnataka itself is providing for
requisite 'reservations', in seats now available to
the Government out of aforesaid 20% of seats,
in PG Course in the institutions/colleges of
Private Managements. The AMPCK need not
make a separate reservation under 15(5) or
Article 471(J) of the Constitution of India."
(Emphasis supplied)."
22. Referring to these clauses, it is submitted
that no right is conferred under the consensual
agreement enabling the State to restrict the reservation
to Telugu linguistic minority students from Hyderabad-
Karnataka region only. Referring to these clauses it is
submitted that the reservation to Telugu speaking
linguistic minority students from Hyderabad-Karnataka
region can be provided by the State only in 20% of the
seats in postgraduate course and 25% seats in
undergraduate course surrendered to the State and not
in 55% of the seats which is available at the disposal of
the petitioner institution.
23. The learned counsel for the petitioner would
refer to the last sentence in the preamble to the
agreement which reads as under.
"In so far as colleges from Hyderabad
Karnataka Region including private medical
institution the provision under Article 371J shall be
implemented".
24. Referring to the said sentence he would
contend that this clause cannot be read in isolation and
is to be read along with other clauses of the agreement
and if so read, it does not enable the State to impose its
intended reservation policy which seeks to encroach on
the rights of linguistic minority students. He would
submit that at three places in the agreement it is
specified that the State can implement its reservation
policy only in 20% or 25% of the seats as the case may
be, available to the State and reference to Article 371J
in 20% seats allotted to the State would demonstrate
that at the time of entering into an agreement the State
intended to provide reservation to the Hyderabad
Karnataka Region in 20% or 25% seats available at the
disposal of the State.
25. Referring to clause 3(c)(ii), it is submitted
that 66% of the total 55% of the seats shall be filled up
from the respective minority students as formulated in
The Karnataka Professional Educational Institutions
(Recognition of Minority Educational Institutions Terms
and Conditions (Professional Education) Rules, 2016 and
the learned counsel would submit that in terms of
Rule 4(6) of Rule, 2016 referred to supra, the entire
State of Karnataka is to be taken as one unit to provide
reservation under linguistic minority quota.
26. Learned Additional Advocate General
Sri Subramanya appearing for respondents Nos.1 and 2
countering the submissions of the petitioner urged the
following contentions:-
i. The petitioner institution is a Member of the
Association of Minority Professional Colleges in
Karnataka (AMPCK.) and the Association has
entered a consensual agreement with the State
relating to seat matrix for undergraduate and
postgraduate courses in medicine for the
academic year 2020-2022. The State has
revised the seat matrix in tune with the
requirement of the agreement and the Petitioner
institution is claiming rights contrary to the
terms of the consensual agreement.
ii. This consensual agreement in spirit is nothing
but a step towards implementing the State's
obligation under Article 371J of the Constitution
of India and the same is binding on the
petitioner.
iii. Since the source of power to enter into a
consensual agreement is traceable to S.4A of
Act of 2006, it is to be construed similar to an
order to meet the obligations under Article 371J.
iv. In terms of the agreement, the petitioner is
bound to provide reservations to Telugu
linguistic minority students from Hyderabad
Region and not to the Telugu minority students
who are outside Hyderabad Karnataka though
they are residing in Karnataka.
v. The petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is not maintainable as the
petitioner is challenging the consensual
agreement.
vi. The petitioner cannot approbate and reprobate
and having entered into consensual agreement
agreeing to provide reservations to Telugu
speaking minority from Hyderabad Karnataka
Region now it is not open to the petitioner to
contend that reservation in petitioner institution
is open to all Telugu speaking students in the
State of Karnataka.
vii. The petitioner has agreed to a pattern of seat
matrix from 2017 onwards. The same seat
matrix is introduced in the form of a revised
seat matrix. It is not open for the petitioner to
turn around and refuse the performance of the
obligation under the agreement.
viii. Article 371J introduced in the Constitution in
terms of the 98th amendment has a specific
object of uplifting the Hyderabad Karnataka
Region and this article overrides Articles 15(6)
and Article 30 of the Constriction of India. As
such State is justified in restricting the
reservations to the Telugu minority students to
the petitioner institution to those who are falling
within Hyderabad Karnataka Region.
ix. The power of the State to enforce its reservation
policy under Article 15(4) is not taken away by
Article 15(5) of the Constitution of India. The
right conferred under Article 30 of the
Constitution of India in favour of minority
institutions is not absolute and it is subjected to
reasonable restrictions to be imposed by the
Parliament or State.
x. Accepting the contention of the petitioner that
the reservation in postgraduate and
undergraduate medical seats in petitioner
institution to Telugu linguistic minority students
is applicable for Telugu linguistic minority
throughout the State would defeat the very
object of Article 371J of Constitution of India
and it is in the teeth of Article 371J of
Constitution of India. Hence, the same cannot
be accepted.
xi. The decisions relied upon by the petitioner are
rendered before the introduction of Article 371J,
as such those decisions do not have any
consequence.
xii. Clause -5 of the consensual agreement which
provides for modalities of admission imposed an
obligation on the petitioner institution to provide
reservations in terms of Article 371J. Thus the
petitioner cannot turn around and say the
agreement is not binding.
27. In support of his contention, the learned
Additional Advocate General has relied upon the
following judgments:-
1. 2019 SCC Online Karnataka 1243 -
A.S.Vimalakshi and another V. State of
Karnataka;
2. (2020) 6 SCC 689 - S.K.Mohd.Rafique v.
Managing Committee;
3. 2017 SCC Online Madras 26347 - Director of
Elementary Education v. Correspondent Saint
Josephs Elementary School;
4. (2018) 8 SCC 501 - State v. Union of India and
another;
5. (2008) 6 SCC 1- Ashok Kumar Takhur v. Union
of India and others.
6. (2021) 3 SCC 241 - Ireo Grace Realtech Private
Limited v. Abhishek Khanna and others;
7. (2013) 5 SCC 470 - Rajasthan State Industrial
Development and Investment Corporation v.
Diamond and Gem Development Corporation
and another.
28. Elaborating his contentions, the learned
Additional Advocate General would submit that the State
has obligations to fulfil the mandate of Article 371J and
Hyderabad Karnataka region being a backward region is
given a special status under Article 371J. The AMPCK
being conscious of this position has entered into this
agreement and agreed to provide reservations as
required under Article 371J.
29. It is also submitted that notwithstanding the
restrictions found in Article 15(5) and (6) of the
Constitution of India, on meaningful reading and
construction of Article 15(4) and Article 371J of the
constitution of India the State is justified in insisting on
reservations only for Telugu linguistic minorities from
Hyderabad Karnataka region.
30. It is also urged by the learned Additional
Advocate General that Article 371J being a special
provision has an overriding effect over all other articles
of the constitution of India. It is urged that State is
implementing the constitutional obligation under Article
371J through the consensual agreement and association
of colleges having agreed to provide reservations as
required under Article 371J. It is urged that in terms of
clause 5 of the agreement the institutions located in the
Hyderabad Karnataka region shall provide reservations
only to the students from the said region.
31. It is also urged that having followed the seat
matrix pattern in a particular way since 2017, the
petitioner cannot be permitted to turn around to say
that they will not provide reservations as per the revised
seat matrix which is similar to the seat matrix followed
since 2017.
32. It is also submitted that the State is providing
reservations to Telugu linguistic minority students from
Hyderabad-Karnataka region as such the interest of
Telugu Minority Students is protected and the petitioner
cannot raise a grievance.
33. And based on the above-said submissions
have urged to dismiss the petition.
34. Learned counsel Sri N.K.Ramesh appearing
for respondent No.3 - Karnataka Educational Authority
adopting the submission of Additional Advocate General
has also raised the following additional grounds:-
i. The ambiguity if any in the consensual
agreement concerning postgraduate students is
clarified in the consensual agreement relating to
undergraduate students.
ii. The terms and conditions of the agreement
would demonstrate that the petitioner institution
has consented to provide reservation as
mandated under Article 371J. Thus Telugu
speaking linguistic minority students cannot
claim reservation in an institution located in
Hyderabad-Karnataka region if the students are
not from Hyderabad-Karnataka region.
iii. The petitioner is not a party to the consensual
agreement and the consensual agreement is
between the State and the fifth respondent
Association in which the petitioner is only a
member. Since the Association has not
questioned the action of the State, the
petitioner cannot be permitted to question the
action of the State.
35. Learned counsel Sri N.K.Ramesh elaborating
his contentions would invite the attention of the court to
paragraph 5(b) of the consensual agreement pertaining
to the undergraduate course in medicine. The last
sentence in the said paragraphs reads as under
"the AMPCK also need not make separate
reservations under Article 371J of the Constitution
of India which provides for people from
Hyderabad-Karnataka region, except in respect
of institutions located in the said region".
(Emphasis supplied)
36. Referring to the above-said sentence it is
urged that institutions located in Hyderabad-Karnataka
region have to adhere to the requirement of reservation
under Article 371J.
37. Learned counsel Sri S.S.Mamadpur appearing
for respondent No.5 has supported the contention of the
petitioner and also placed a memo in this behalf.
38. Reply submission by the petitioner.
i. The consensual agreement entered into
between the first respondent and the fifth
respondent Association cannot be treated as
an order under Article 371J and the consensual
agreement is only an ad hoc agreement for
seat sharing.
ii. In view of the fact that stay order is granted to
the order of 2013 passed under Article 371J of
the Constitution there is no policy of the State
under Article 371J in place. Thus, the
agreement cannot be construed as an order to
implement the obligations of the State under
Article 371J.
39. In this case the parties to the proceedings
are relying on the consensual agreement dated
19.01.2022, in support of their respective stand. Both
the parties are contending that the other party is acting
contrary to the consensual agreement. Referring to para
3(a), 3(c)(i), (ii) and para (c) and para 5(a), it is
contended that the agreement enables the petitioner
institution to provide reservation to all Telugu linguistic
minority students in the State of Karnataka and the
petitioner institution cannot be compelled to restrict the
linguistic minority reservation only to the Telugu
linguistic minority students from Hyderabad Karnataka
region.
40. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner
would submit referring to the last sentence in para 3.c.
of the agreement extracted above in paragraph 16 of
this judgment, contends that there is no obligation to
provide separate reservations under Article 371Jof the
Constitution of India. The last sentence in the said
paragraph reads as under.
The AMPCK need not make a separate
reservation under 15(5) or Article 471(J) of the
Constitution of India."(Emphasis supplied)
Based on this clause, it is contended that the petitioner
institution cannot be compelled to restrict the
reservation only to Telugu linguistic minority students in
Hyderabad Karnataka Region.
41. It is submitted that the document has to be
construed as a whole and this is to be construed in the
light of Rule 4(6) of 2016 Rules which mandates 66%
reservation to the students for the linguistic minority of
the State. In an institution, not less than 66% of the
students enrolled in the institution shall belong to the
persons belonging to the linguistic or religious
minority of the State to which the educational
institution belongs.
(Emphasis supplied)
42. It is contended that the seat-sharing
agreement is entered into keeping in mind the
requirement of the above-said Rule and the contention
of the State if accepted would defeat the object of Rule
2016. On this premise, it is urged that the reservation
based on the linguistic minorities' seats cannot be
restricted to Hyderabad-Karnataka region and it should
be extended to the whole of the State of Karnataka.
43. The contention of the State is based on one
sentence in the last paragraph of the preamble in the
consensual agreement. The said paragraph reads as
under:-
"And whereas the Surrender of the seats by
AMPCK to the State Government would take care
of the implementation of policies of the State
Government namely reservation of seats under
Article 15(5) and Article 371J of the Constitution of
India. The State Government shall implement the
above-said policy from the seats surrendered by
the members of the APPCK to the State
Government. In so far as colleges from
Hyderabad - Karnataka Region including the
Private Medical Institution the provision
under Article 371J shall be implemented."
44. Based on this last sentence the State
contends that the agreement provides for an exception
to a seat-sharing arrangement based on linguistic
minority criteria and according to the State the
institutions located in Hyderabad-Karnataka region shall
provide the reservation based on linguistic minority
criteria only to the students from Hyderabad-Karnataka
region.
45. It is the stand of the State Government that
the State Government is implementing the obligation of
the State on Article 371J of the Constitution of India
through consensual agreement. According to the State
in view of the stay order in W.P.20201/2014 passed in
the year 2013, to the orders of 2013, passed by the
Governor of the State, there is a hurdle to implement
the constitutional mandate as required under Article
371J of the Constitution of India. Thus it has
necessitated the State to enter into a consensual
agreement with the stakeholders and through such
agreement, the State is implementing the constitutional
obligation as required under Article 371J of the
Constitution of India. Rule 4A of the Act of 2006 which
provides for seat-sharing agreement is pressed into
service to urge that the seat-sharing agreement has a
statutory force and same reflects the policy of the State
under Article 371J of the constitution of India.
46. Thus, the question is whether the State can
enforce its obligations under Article 371J of the
constitution of India through an agreement with
institutions?
47. Article 371J of the Constitution of India
reads as under:-
"371J President is empowered to provide that
the Governor of Karnataka would have special
responsibility for:
• The establishment of a separate development
board for the Hyderabad-Karnataka region.
• Making a provision that a report on the working of
the board would be placed every year before the
State Legislative Assembly.
• The equitable allocation of funds for developmental
expenditure over the region.
• The reservation of seats in educational and
vocational training institutions in the region for
students who belong to the region.
• The reservation in state government posts in the
region for persons who belong to the region.
48. From the reading of Article 371J of the
Constitution of India, it is apparent that the policy of
the State under Article 371J of the Constitution of India
can be formulated and implemented only through the
mechanism provided under Article 371J. Said
mechanism contemplates an order by the Hon'ble
President of India, conferring the responsibility on the
Governor, who in turn, has to pass necessary order in
conformity with the requirement of Article 371J of the
Constitution of India spelt out in the said article. Of
course, an exercise is carried out by the Governor in
terms of order of 2013. However, the operation of the
2013 order is stayed vide interim stay granted by the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition
No.20201/2014.
49. This being the position, the contention of
respondent/State that consensual agreement entered
under S.4A of the Act of 2006 should be treated on par
or similar to an order under Article 371J of the
Constitution of India cannot be accepted for the simple
reason an order under Article 371J of the Constitution of
India has to be promulgated only in the manner
prescribed under Article 371J of the Constitution of
India. When the law requires something to be done in a
particular manner, it should be done in that manner
only. It is even more so, in the case of constitutional
mandate. No deviation is permissible to the
constitutional mandate when it comes to formulating the
policy through an order or enactment under Article 371J
of the Constitution of India. Such order is to be passed
by the Governor of the State and none other. Thus the
consensual agreement dated 19.01.2022, cannot be
treated as a 'law' or an 'order' to implement the
obligation under Article 371J of the Constitution of India.
The consensual agreement under scrutiny is only an ad
hoc arrangement between the parties to balance the
conflicting claims in the matter of seat arrangements
and other incidental matters relating to the admission of
students to the professional course and it cannot have a
status of an order under Article 371J.
50. Referring to the last paragraph of the
preamble referred to above, which seeks to implement
the obligation under Article 371J of the Constitution of
India, it is urged that said clause is enforceable. The
order passed by the Governor under Article 371J of the
Constitution of India is not in place for implementation
in view of the stay order granted to the said order. Thus,
there is no policy of the State for implementation as on
the date of the agreement. Even the contours of the
purported policy of the State under Article 371J of the
State is not forthcoming in the agreement. Thus, the
State cannot interpret the document i.e., consensual
agreement dated 19.01.2022 in a vacuum to assert that
they are entitled to impose reservation policy as
contemplated under Article 371J of the Constitution of
India through an agreement.
51. From the reading of the clauses extracted
supra from the agreement dated 19.01.2022, it is
apparent that the State Government was the conscious
fact that the reservation policy of the State shall be
implemented from 20% / 25% ( for postgraduate and
undergraduate courses respectively) of the seats
surrendered to the Government. Para 3(c)(i) referred to
above makes it very clear that 20% / 25% of the
Government intake will be filled by the Government as
per its admission policy including reservation of seats for
scheduled castes and scheduled tribes and other
backward classes and under Article 371J of the
Constitution of India.
52. Clause 3(c)(ii) enables the private institution
to fill up 66% of the seats in terms of the Rules 2016.
The Rules 2016 provides for filling up of seats by taking
into consideration the entire State as one unit as
noticed in Rule 4(6) of 2016 Rules.
53. In addition to this, para 3 c stipulates that
the Members of AMPCK are exempted from making any
separate reservation under Article 15(5) or Article 371J
of the Constitutions of India. From a combined reading
of these clauses, there is no difficulty in holding that the
consensual agreement doesn't restrict the institution
from filling up 66% of the seats out of 55% of the total
seats available to it by treating the entire State of
Karnataka as one unit.
54. Referring to judgments relating to the
interpretation of a contract, the learned Additional
Advocate General Sri. Subramanya would submit that
the agreement is to be construed to ascertain and give
effect to the real intention of the parties to the contract.
The learned counsel would place reliance on the
judgments in the case of Rajasthan Industrial
Development Corporation and IREO Grace
Realtech, referred supra.
55. As far as the principles relating to the
interpretation of the document is concerned, there is no
dispute that in case of ambiguity, the document is to be
interpreted to give effect to the intention of the
contracting parties. However, the consensual agreement
under scrutiny is the agreement that is entered under
Section 4A of the Act of 2006. As stated earlier it has a
statutory flavour. The agreement is to be understood in
the backdrop of obligations of the institutions under the
applicable Acts/Rules/Regulations. The agreement is
entered into to make an arrangement relating to the
seat matrix in educational institutions run by parties to
the agreement. Act of 2006 is the enactment to regulate
admissions to professional colleges. Subsequently, in the
year 2016, Rules 2016 referred supra is enacted and the
said Rules prescribe eligibility criteria for recognition of
minority educational institutions. There is no dispute
that both the enactments referred to above apply to the
contracting association of institutions which is a
contracting party to the agreement. This being the
position, the agreement is to be construed in such a way
that the construction does not violate the provision of
law applicable to the parties. If two interpretations are
permissible and if one interpretation violates a provision
of law and another interpretation gels with the
requirement of law, then the interpretation that gels
with the requirement of the law is to be adopted. In case
of conflict between law and the clause in the agreement,
the law prevails. The interpretation that under the
agreement, the institutions have to provide for exclusive
reservations to the Hyderabad-Karnataka region runs
contrary to the requirement of Rules 2016. Hence such
interpretation is not acceptable. The clause in the
agreement which is inconsistent with law, cannot be
enforced. Under the circumstances, the contentions of
respondents No.1 to 3 that reservation is restricted to
Telugu Linguistic Minority Students in the Hyderabad-
Karnataka region to implement the policy under Article
371J cannot be accepted.
56. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of
A.S.Vimalakshi and another V. State of Karnataka
reported in 2019 SCC Online Karnataka Page 1423
the learned Additional Advocate General would submit
that the contention raised by the petitioner is
unsustainable in view of the law declared in the
aforementioned judgment. In the said judgment the
Court was examining the question raised in interpreting
the Karnataka Public Employment "Reservation in an
appointment for Hyderabad-Karnataka Region" order
2013. In the aforesaid petition, the challenge was made
to clause-B of Para No.13 of the said order. The learned
Single Judge of this Court inter alia has held that the
words "For the people of Hyderabad-Karnataka region''
will have to be read to mean for the benefit of people of
the said region. The ratio laid down in the
aforementioned judgment cannot be applied to the
present case for the simple reason, the provisions of
Karnataka Public Employment "Reservation in an
appointment for Hyderabad-Karnataka Region" order
2013 are not sought to be applied in this case. This case
is all about rights and liabilities under the consensual
agreement dated 19.01.2022 and the interpretation of
consensual agreement concerning rights and obligations
flowing from the Act of 2006 and Rules 2016 referred
supra.
57. Regarding maintainability of the writ
petition to enforce contractual obligations :
The learned Additional Advocate General placing
reliance on Rajasthan State Industrial Development
and Investment Corporation and another, a case
referred supra, would contend that the petitioner's
petition seeking to enforce a contractual obligation, is
not maintainable. The State contends that in view of the
stay order granted to the Order of 2103, it has the
power and discretion to implement reservation policy
under Article 371J through an agreement under S.4A of
the 2006 Act. Indeed, it is true that the Court would be
extremely slow in exercising jurisdiction under Article
226 when it comes to contractual obligations. However,
there is no absolute bar to deal with petitions relating to
contractual obligations. If the contract is styled as an
instrument to implement the State policy or if the
contract is contrary to the binding provision of law and
where such contract entered by the State is likely to
affect persons (students in this case) who are not
parties to the contract, or if the contract has an element
of public law, (touching the reservation policy in this
case) then the writ court can entertain the petition
under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Although in a
different context, the Supreme court in the matter of
Election Commission of India vs. Union of India
(1995 SCC Sup (3) 643) has held that -
"........, we must also indicate that there are no
unreviewable discretions under the constitutional
dispensation. The overall constitutional function to ensure
that constitutional authorities function within the sphere of
their respective constitutional authority is that of the
courts......"
Since the Order of 2013 is stayed, the State is asserting
that it has the power and discretion to implement the
policy under Article 317J, through an agreement. Thus,
such an agreement is susceptible to judicial review
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
58. In this case the petitioner though claiming
right under the consensual agreement dated
19.01.2022, in substance is asserting its seat-sharing
rights under rule 4(6) of the rules 2016. Moreover, the
petition is to enforce a statutory right that is incidentally
recorded in the agreement. In such a situation there is
no difficulty in holding that a writ petition is
maintainable.
59. The standoff between the parties to the
petition will also affect the students who seek admission
to professional colleges in Hyderabad-Karnataka region.
Such being the position, asking the parties to the
contract of this nature, to seek remedy under civil law
in a form of a suit for any other remedy if at all
available, will not serve any purpose. Hence objection
relating to maintainability of the writ petition on the
ground of alternative remedy to enforce contractual
obligation is overruled.
60. Contention relating to estoppel/delay
and latches:-
The State would contend that the impugned seat
arrangement is followed since 2017. The petitioner has
not objected to the earlier seat matrix providing
reservation on linguistic minority quota to the students
coming only from the Hyderabad-Karnataka region all
these years. Based on this premise, it is urged that the
petitioner institution is estopped from contending that
the seat matrix is contrary to law. It is also contended
that the petition is hit by delay and latches as the
petitioner has not questioned the seat-sharing
arrangement which is followed since 2017. The
contention of the State in this regard has to be rejected
for the following reasons:-
a. Though the petitioner has not questioned the
seat matrix arrangement since 2017 up to 2021,
it is to be noticed that the agreements executed
since 2017 are agreements for each academic
year and agreements last only for a year. Thus,
each agreement gives a different cause of action.
b. This year the seat matrix which is published and
later withdrawn and revised, has given a fresh
cause of action in favour of the petitioner, as the
impugned notification is published on
31.01.2022. Thus, the cause of action arose only
on 30.01.2022 and there is no delay on the part
of the petitioner institution in filing the writ
petition.
c. It is also to be noted that the petitioner is
claiming to enforce its right protected in terms of
2016 Rules. If the petitioner has not challenged
the seat matrix from 2017 to 2021 which
according to the petitioner are contrary to the
Rules 2016, such inaction cannot be a ground to
say that the petitioner has to follow the same
seat matrix which is contrary to Rules 2016. If
the seat matrix is contrary to Rules 2016 and
even if the petitioner has followed the erroneous
seat matrix for four years, the petitioner's right
to question the erroneous seat matrix is not lost.
There cannot be any estoppel against the statute.
This principle is well settled and needs no further
elaboration. When the seat matrix proposed by
the State is contrary to the consensual
agreement and seeks to violate Rules 2016, the
petitioner cannot be compelled to perpetuate the
mistake by following the seat matrix which is
contrary to the agreement.
d. It is also to be noted that the petitioner is
claiming protection for violation of his
fundamental rights and the rights guaranteed
under part III of the constitution cannot be
waived. On this ground also the contention of the
State that the writ petition is not maintainable for
having acquiesced a particular pattern of seat
matrix from 2017 has no substance.
61. It is urged on behalf of the State that the
impugned seat matrix does not affect the interest of
Telugu linguistic minority students in the State of
Karnataka since the Telugu Minority Students in
Hyderabad Karnataka will have a reservation in
Institutions located in Hyderabad Karnataka. However, it
is to be noticed that the 2016 Rules provide for
reservation to the linguistic minority students for the
entire state where the minority institution is located.
When the Rules 2016, enacted by the State itself
provides for such representation, in the absence of any
policy or order under Article 371J, it is not open to the
State to hold that linguistic minority students are not
affected by the impugned seat matrix.
62. Contention regarding locus standi :
Sri N.K.Ramesh the learned counsel appearing for
third respondent/KEA would submit that the petitioner is
not a party to the consensual agreement and the
consensual agreement is entered into between the State
and AMPCK. The AMPCK is the fifth respondent in this
case. AMPCK has not questioned the revised seat matrix
on the ground of violation of the consensual agreement
and it is not open to the petitioner to raise an issue
relating to violation of the agreement since it is not the
party to the agreement.
63. This court is of the opinion that above said
contention is not acceptable for the following reasons:-
a. There is no dispute over the fact that the
petitioner is the Member of AMPCK and both the
State as well as the third respondent/KEA would
contend that the agreement is binding on the
petitioner. If the agreement is binding on the
petitioner, the petitioner has the right to question
the violation of the agreement. The contention
that the agreement is binding on a person and
said person cannot question the violation of
rights flowing from the said agreement defies
logic.
b. The petitioner is not questioning the validity of
the agreement and is not seeking to set aside the
agreement. The petitioner is only complaining
violation of the terms of the agreement which is
entered into by the Association which is formed
for the benefit of the petitioner and other
members who were part of the Association. The
petitioner is seeking to enforce the terms of the
agreements.
c. It is forthcoming from the records i.e., Annexure-
H letter dated 08.06.2021, that respondent No.5
- association acting on behalf of the petitioner
has submitted a representation to do away with
cross reservation under Hyderabad-Karnataka
Quota. Thus, the association has taken a stand
relating to Telugu Minority Students outside
Hyderabad-Karnataka region in the State of
Karnataka and is of the view that the Telugu
Linguistic Minority Students outside of the
Hyderabad - Karnataka region in the State of
Karnataka are also eligible to apply under
Linguistic Minority Quota in the petitioner's
institution. Though the Association is not
questioning the seat matrix on the premise that
the seat matrix is contrary to the terms of the
agreement, nevertheless being a party to this
proceeding, respondent No.5 has supported the
stand of the petitioner. Since the deviation from
the agreement is affecting the right of the
petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to complain
about the violation of the terms of the
agreement.
64. When the case was heard on 8th March 2022,
this court passed an interim direction to the 3rd
respondent not to declare the results of 2nd round
counselling in so far as petitioner institution. The results
were announced for admission to all other medical
colleges on 8th March 2022 except the petitioner's
college. The judgment was reserved after the conclusion
of the hearing on 8th March 2022.
65. On 11th March 2022, the case was listed as
the court felt clarifications are required in respect of the
interim order passed on 24.02.2022 based on a
concession made by the petitioner on 24.02.2022.
Explaining the concession recorded on 24.02.2022, the
memo is filed by the petitioner, that the petitioner
institution would honour the admissions granted to the
students in the first round of counselling in a
postgraduate and undergraduate courses in medicine.
The relief claimed in the petition will be restricted to the
second round and following rounds of counselling if any.
Said submission was placed on record on 11.02.2022. In
view of the above-said submission, which is said to have
been made taking into consideration the interest of
students who are admitted pursuant to first-round
counselling results, the petitioner is not entitled to all
the relief claimed in the petition.
66. It is made clear that, the decision is rendered
in these petitions, adjudicating the rights and liabilities
of the parties under the consensual agreement dated
19.01.2022. The questions relating to the reservation in
Educational Institutions located in Hyderabad-Karnataka
region, under The Karnataka Educational Institutions
(Regulations of Admission in the Hyderabad-Karnataka
Region) (Order - 2013) is not adjudicated in this order
as the said questions are to be adjudicated in
W.P.No.20201/2014 and connected matters.
Hence, the following :
ORDER
i) Writ Petitions 200345/2022 and 200365/2022
are allowed in part.
ii) The impugned communication dated
31.01.2022 marked at Annexure-L and revised
seat matrix at Annexure L1 in Writ Petition
No.200345/2022 are quashed in so far as it is
applicable to the petitioner's institution.
iii) The impugned revised seat matrix at
Annexure-L in Writ Petition No.200365/2022 is
quashed in so far as it is applicable to the
petitioner's institution.
iv) Consequently the 3rd respondent Karnataka
Education Authority is directed to conduct the
second round of counselling afresh, permitting
eligible Telugu linguistic minority students in
the State of Karnataka to apply for admission to
undergraduate and postgraduate courses in
medicine, in the petitioner's institution.
v) In terms of the interim order dated 24.02.2022,
passed on the concession made by the
petitioner, the admissions made in the
petitioner's institution based on the results
declared in 1st round of counselling are valid.
vi) No order as to cost.
SD/-
JUDGE
SD/-
JUDGE
sn/KJJ
