Ms Sahu Shruti Sanjay vs Rajiv Gandhi University Of Health ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4302 Kant

                                        -1-
                                                NC: 2023:KHC:24170
                                                   WP No. 14221 of 2023




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                      DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

                                     BEFORE
             THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
                    WRIT PETITION NO. 14221 OF 2023 (EDN-RES)
             BETWEEN:

             1.    MS SAHU SHRUTI SANJAY
                   AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
                   DAUGHTER OF SRI. SANJAY KUMAR SAHU,
                   STUDENT OF I YEAR BAMS,
                   M/S ATREYA AYURVEDIC MEDICAL,
                   HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE,
                   KAKKALLI ROAD, KODIGEHALLI,
                   DODDABALLAPUR TALUK,
                   BANGALORE DISTRICT, BANGALORE.

             2.    M/S ATREYA AYURVEDIC MEDICAL
                   HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE,
                   KAKKALLI ROAD, KODIGEHALLI,
Digitally          DODDABALLAPUR TALUK,
signed by          BANGLORE RURAL DISTRICT.
CHAITHRA A
                   BY ITS PRINCIPAL
Location:
HIGH                                                      ...PETITIONERS
COURT OF     (BY SRI. KRISHNAN C V, ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
             AND:

                   RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
                   4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
                   BANGALORE - 560 041,
                   REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
                                                        ...RESPONDENT
             (BY SRI.GIRISH KUMAR.R, ADVOCATE (VK NOT FILED))
                                   -2-
                                          NC: 2023:KHC:24170
                                              WP No. 14221 of 2023




     THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENT TO APPROVE/ACCORD THE ADMISSION OF THE
PETITIONER NO.1 ADMITTED INTO 2ND PETITIONER COLLEGE
BASED NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR INDIAN SYSTEM OF
MEDICINE, MINISTRY OF AYUSH AS WELL AS THE ORDER OF
COMMISSIONER,     DIRECTORATE    OF    AYUSH    NAMELY
ANNEXURE-F DTD 04/05/2022, G DTD 17/05/2022 AND L DTD
18/03/2023 TO THE I YEAR BAMS FOR THE YEAR 2021-22 AND
PERMIT THE PETITIONER NO.1 TO CONTINUE WITH THE
FURTHER YEARS OF COURSE IN BAMS AND COMPLETE THE
SAME AND ETC.,

    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                              ORDER

The captioned writ petition is filed seeking for the

following reliefs:-

               "a)    Issue a writ of mandamus or any
       other     writ    directing      the   respondent    to

approve/accord the admission of the petitioner No.1 admitted into 2nd petitioner college based National Commission for Indian System of Medicine, Ministry of AYUSH as well as the order of Commissioner, Directorate of AYUSH namely Annexure-F dated 04.05.2022, G dated 17.05.2022 and L dated 18.03.2023, to the I year B.A.M.S. for the year 2021-22 and permit the petitioner No.1 to continue with the

NC: 2023:KHC:24170 WP No. 14221 of 2023

further years of course in B.A.M.S and complete the same;

b) Issue any other writ or order or direction this Honourable court deems fit in the circumstances of the case;

              c)         Grant        such    other      order/s   this
       Honourable            court        deems         fit   in   the
       circumstances of the case;

d) and grant costs and such other relief this Honourable court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."

2. Petitioner No.2 - College and its student i.e.,

petitioner No.1 are before this Court feeling aggrieved by

the inaction on the part of the respondent-University in

declining to approve admission of the petitioner for I year

B.A.M.S. course with petitioner No.2 - College for the

academic year 2021-22.

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the

respondent-University.

NC: 2023:KHC:24170 WP No. 14221 of 2023

4. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel

appearing for the respondent - University, petitioner No.2

- College had sent a list of admitted students. The

respondent - University, on 01.07.2022, has approved

admissions of 79 students as per Annexure-K. Petitioner

No.2 - College, however, claims that the Commissioner,

Directorate of AYUSH vide order dated 18.03.2023 as per

Annexure-L passed an order to admit petitioner No.1 to

petitioner No.2-college. Petitioner No.2 - College further

claimed that it submitted a representation to the

respondent-University on 15.05.2023 based on order

passed by the Commissioner, Directorate of AYUSH.

5. The respondent-University, however, claims

that initial list of 79 students admitted to petitioner No.2 -

College was received by the respondent - University and

their admission is approved. Therefore, respondent -

University claims that additional list of admitted student

cannot be considered as petitioner No.2 - College has

indulged in admitting the student beyond cutoff date.

NC: 2023:KHC:24170 WP No. 14221 of 2023

Respondent - University claims that only after having

verified, 79 candidates admissions are approved by the

respondent - University. The respondent - University has

further placed reliance on the following judgments

rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court:

i) Priya Gupta vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others reported in (2012) 7 SCC 433.

                    ii)       Education              Promotion
             Society for India and Others vs UOI
             and    Ors       reported        in     (2019)   7
             SCC 38.

6. Petitioner No.2 - College claims that petitioner

No.1 has been admitted based on the non-allotment of the

central quota and based on the notification of the National

Commission for Indian System of Medicine and therefore,

it was well within the power of petitioner No.2 - College to

admit the candidate and therefore, petitioner No.2 -

College claims that respondent - University is bound to

approve the admission of petitioner No.1.

NC: 2023:KHC:24170 WP No. 14221 of 2023

7. This Court is not inclined to accede to the said

argument. The Apex Body had only extended time to the

educational institution to furnish original documents for

verification and the said extension was not to admit the

additional students beyond cutoff date. Of late, it has

become trend for educational institutions, which are

unfortunately adopting unethical means in admitting the

students. It appears that for extraneous consideration,

educational institutions are admitting excess students and

then seeking permission at the hands of the Writ Court.

8. This is also one such case, where the admission

made by petitioner No.2 - College is clearly found to be in

violation of the prescribed intake of petitioner No.2 -

College.

9. Be that as it may, the highhandedness of

petitioner No.2 often affects those bonafide students, who

take admissions with an impression that the institutions,

where they intend to pursue their studies, admit students

in terms of rules and regulations laid down by the

NC: 2023:KHC:24170 WP No. 14221 of 2023

respondent - University and by the Apex Body. Often

educational institutions are found guilty of admitting

excess students for financial gains and this act has a direct

impact on the genuine students, who intend to pursue

course with educational institutions.

10. This is a clear case of infraction of Rules and

Regulations by petitioner No.2 - College. But this Court is

compelled to take cognizance of the students interest and

therefore, bearing in mind the interest of students, this

Court is of the view that lenient view has to be taken in

the present case on hand. However, the lenient view

adopted by this Court cannot pardon the acts of petitioner

No.2 - College, which has indulged in admitting students

beyond cutoff date. Therefore, petitioner No.2-college is

put to strict terms and suitable cost is to be imposed on

petitioner No.2 - College. As rightly pointed out by the

learned counsel appearing for the respondent - University,

even if violation is taken note of, petitioner No.2 - College

has to be put on notice that in the event it is found

NC: 2023:KHC:24170 WP No. 14221 of 2023

repeating same mistakes, it is open for the respondent -

University to take appropriate action in terms of Section

48 of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act,

1994 (for short 'RGUHS Act, 1994'). Under Section 48 of

'RGUHS Act, 1994', the respondent - University is

empowered to take appropriate actions wherever it is

found that the college is guilty of violation of conditions of

its affiliation or where the college is found to have

indulged in a manner in which it is found to be prejudicial

to the interest of education. If similar violation are

committed by petitioner No.2 - College, it is always open

for respondent - University to withdraw the affiliation.

11. With these above observations, I pass the

following;

ORDER

(i) The writ petition is allowed;

(ii) The respondent-University is hereby directed to approve admission of petitioner No.1-student and upload the approved

NC: 2023:KHC:24170 WP No. 14221 of 2023

admission list, provided petitioner No.1 meets the eligibility criteria;

(iii) The petitioner No.2-college shall deposit cost of Rs.25,000/- with the respondent-University within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order;

(iv) The petitioner No.2-college shall given an undertaking that henceforth they will not admit students beyond cut-off date;

(v) The pending interlocutory application, if any, does not survive for consideration and stands disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

CA