Karnataka High Court
Ms. Sanjana Raghunath vs The Karnataka Examination Authority on 2 May, 2025
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF MAY 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
REVIEW PETITION No.509 OF 2024
IN
WRIT PETITION No. 18327 OF 2023(EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
MS. SANJANA RAGHUNATH,
D/O RAGHUNATH S.K.,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
No.G-204, PURVA FAIRMONT APARTMENT,
II SECTOR, 24TH MAIN,
HSR LAYOUT,
BENGALURU-560102.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SRIKANTH M. P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY,
18TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD,
MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU-560012.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.
2. YOUTH SERVICES AND SPORTS DEPARTMENT
YAVANIKA, K.R.CIRCLE,
BENGALURU-560001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION,
POCKET-14, SECTOR-8,
-2-
DWARKA PHASE-1,
NEW DELHI-110077.
ALSO AT
SATARKTA BHAWAN,
G.P.O COMPLEX, BLOCK A, INA,
NEW DELHI-110023.
4. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
MEDICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001.
5. THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION
1ST FLOOR, FORT,
K.R.ROAD, BENGALURU-560002.
6. ALL INDIA CHESS FEDERATION
ROOM No.70,
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM,
CHENNAI-600003
TAMILNADU.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI N.K. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 AND R6 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
SRI N. KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI K.S. HARISH, AGA FOR R4 & R5;
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1
OF CPC PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 01.10.2024
PASSED WITH WP NO18327/2023 (EDN RES) VIDE ANNEXURE - A,
TO THE EXTENT OF GRANTING ONLY THE COMPENSATION Rs.10
LAKHS TO THE PETITIONER AND FURTHER MOULD BE RELIEF TO
THE PETITIONER BY ACCOMMODATING HER IN THE
GOVERNMENT SPORTS QUOTA SEAR IN FURTHERANCE OF THE
ENTITLEMENT OF THE PETITIONER BEING CATEGORIZED IN P1
CATEGORY AS PER RULE 9 (1) (B) OF THE KARNATAKA
SELECTION OF CANDIDATES OF ADMISSION TO GOVERNMENT
SEATS IN PROFESSIONAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS RULES,
2006, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:
-3-
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
N. V. ANJARIA
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND)
Heard learned advocate Mr. M. P. Srikanth for the petitioner,
learned advocate Mr. N. K. Ramesh for respondent No.1, learned
advocate Mr. N. Ketty for respondent No.3 and learned
Government Advocate Mr. K. S. Harish for respondent Nos.4
and 5.
2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.18327 of 2023 has
preferred the present review petition seeking review of the
judgment and order dated 01.10.2024.
3. The brief facts relevant to the matter are as follows: The
petitioner is a Chess player who has participated in various State,
National, and International Chess events. Aspiring to pursue a
career in medicine, the petitioner appeared for the National
Eligibility-Cum-Entrance Test (NEET) for the academic year 2022-
23, in which she secured a commendable rank. Subsequently, the
petitioner filed an application seeking admission to a government
medical college under the sports quota. The petitioner claims
-4-
eligibility for consideration as a P-I or P-III candidate. However, she
was erroneously classified as a P-V candidate and placed at Sl.
No. 9 in the Provisional Eligibility List. It is further stated that due to
the erroneous decision of the authorities, the petitioner was
deprived of admission to a government seat under the sports quota
and was compelled to seek admission to the MBBS course through
a private seat.
4. This Court, after considering the Karnataka Selection of
Candidates for Admission to Government Seats in Professional
Educational Institutions Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as
'Rules of 2006'), governing the admission of candidates, held that
the petitioner, having represented India and won the Asian Youth
Chess Championship 2018 in the Super-A Games, was eligible to
be categorized as a P-I candidate, rather than being erroneously
categorized as P-V. Subsequently, the petitioner, in pursuit of her
aspiration to become a doctor, enrolled in a private seat and
continued her MBBS course. As of the date of the order, the
petitioner is still pursuing her MBBS studies.
5. The Court, considering that the process of selection and
admission to the MBBS course had long been completed and the
seats reserved for the sports quota were already filled, observed
-5-
that any direction to admit the petitioner against the reserved sports
quota seat would adversely affect the candidates who had already
been admitted and were pursuing their course. Therefore, while
declaring the petitioner eligible to be categorized as P-I under the
Rules of 2006, the Court directed that the petitioner be
compensated. Accordingly, the petitioner was awarded a
compensation of Rs.10 lakhs to be paid by the State. This order is
now aggrieved in the present review petition.
6. Learned Advocate Mr. M. P. Srikanth, appearing for the
petitioner, vehemently contends that once the petitioner is declared
eligible to be categorized as a P-I candidate under the Rules of
2006, she would be entitled to admission to a government seat
under the sports quota. Accordingly, the petitioner must be
provided admission under the sports quota. It is further submitted
that the compensation awarded cannot adequately compensate for,
or justify, the injustice caused to the petitioner by the State's
incorrect decision in categorizing her priority. Learned Advocate
additionally submits that the respondent-State has failed to pay the
compensation as directed by the Court.
7. Learned Advocate Mr. N. K. Ramesh, appearing for
Respondent No. 1, submits that the issue pertains to the admission
-6-
process for the Academic Year 2022-23, and that the entire
selection process has already been completed. It is further
submitted that accommodating the petitioner under the sports
quota at this stage would disrupt the admission of candidates who
are already pursuing their courses. Any interference in the
selection process after two years would adversely affect not only
the academic careers of other candidates but also that of the
petitioner. It is contended that such interference, after the
completion of the admission process and amidst the ongoing
academic year, is impermissible.
8. Learned Advocate Mr. N. Ketty, appearing for Respondent
No. 3, submits that once the selection process is complete and
students are already pursuing their respective courses, any
interference with their academic progress is impermissible. It is
further submitted that the only remedy available is the migration of
a candidate from one college to another, in accordance with the
Rules governing such migration. It is contended that if the petitioner
were to be accommodated in the midst of the course, it would
disrupt the entire selection process.
9. Learned Government Advocate Mr. K. S. Harish, appearing
for Respondents Nos. 4 and 5, reiterating the submissions made by
-7-
the learned advocates for Respondents Nos. 1 and 3, submits that
any interference at this stage in the selection process is
impermissible, both in the interest of the candidates already
pursuing their courses under the sports quota and the petitioner.
10. In response to the contention of petitioner that the State has
not paid the awarded compensation, learned Government
Advocate submits that the compensation was not paid as the
petitioner had sought admission rather than compensation in this
petition. However, it is further submitted that the compensation will
be paid as directed by this Court within a reasonable time.
11. Having considered the submissions of learned advocates for
the parties, it is evident that the petitioner filed an application
seeking admission to a Government seat under the sports quota.
The Rules of 2006 provide classification and preferences for
candidates based on the nature of the sport, their participation, and
their performance, including the winning of medals. The petitioner
was initially classified as a P-IV candidate under the Rules of 2006,
which classification was found to be incorrect, and she was
subsequently declared eligible as a P-I candidate.
12. In normal circumstances, this Court would have directed the
authorities to admit the petitioner under the sports quota. However,
-8-
such recourse was not permissible in view of the peculiar facts of
the present case. The academic year in question was 2022-23, and
the entire selection and admission process had already been
completed. There were no vacant seats available under the sports
quota. Moreover, the petitioner had already joined the MBBS
course on a private seat and was pursuing her studies. At that
stage, issuing a direction to admit the petitioner under the sports
quota would necessitate a complete redo of the selection process,
which would affect all candidates admitted under the sports quota,
as well as other candidates, including the petitioner. It was further
considered that such an action would disrupt the academic
progress of other candidates who were in no way responsible for
the error committed by the State in classifying the petitioner's
preference.
13. The review petition reiterates the very contentions that were
duly considered and appropriately addressed by this Court in its
order. The grounds raised in the review petition are merely a
repetition of the submissions made in the writ petition, which have
already been answered by the Court.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal Nos. 5503-
04/2022 (S. Madhusudhan Reddy vs. V. Narayana Reddy and
-9-
others), [2022 SCC Online SC 1034], held that the error to be
considered in a review petition must be apparent on the face of the
record and not one that requires detailed scrutiny or investigation.
15. In Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati and Others [2013 (8)
SCC 320], Hon'ble Supreme Court held as,
"12. ....the jurisdiction and scope of review is not
that of an appeal and it can be entertained only if
there is an error apparent on the face of the record.
....
14. Review of the earlier order cannot be done
unless the court is satisfied that material error,
manifest on the face of the order, undermines its
soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.....
15. An error which is not self-evident and has to be
detected by a process of reasoning can hardly be
said to be an error apparent on the face of the
record justifying the Court to exercise its power of
review. A review is by no means an appeal in
disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard
and corrected, but lies only for patent error.....
17.....it is not open to the Court to reappreciate the
evidence and reach a different conclusion, even if
that is possible. Conclusion arrived at on
appreciation of evidence cannot be assailed in a
review petition unless it is shown that there is an
error apparent on the face of the record or for some
reason akin thereto.....
18. Review is not rehearing of an original matter.
The power of review cannot be confused with
appellate power which enables a superior court to
correct all errors committed by a subordinate court.
A repetition of old and overruled argument is not
enough to reopen concluded adjudications.....
- 10 -
Summary of the principles
20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds
of review are maintainable as stipulated by the
statute:
20.1. When the review will be maintainable:
(i) Discovery of new and important matter or
evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence,
was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could
not be produced by him;
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the
record;
(iii) Any other sufficient reason.
....
20.2. When the review will not be maintainable:
(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not
enough to reopen concluded adjudications.
(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the
original hearing of the case.
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material
error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines
its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.
(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise
whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and
corrected but lies only for patent error.
(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject
cannot be a ground for review.
(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record
should not be an error which has to be fished out
and searched.
(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully
within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be
permitted to be advanced in the review petition.
- 11 -
(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief
sought at the time of arguing the main matter had
been negatived."
16. Applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court (supra), what is urged by the review petitioner amounts to a
rehearing of the original matter. All the contentions raised in the
review petition were duly considered in the writ petition, and such
submissions have been explicitly negatived.
17. While affirming that the grounds and arguments raised in the
review petition were duly considered in the writ petition, the Court
reiterates its earlier decision and has already addressed the
contention regarding the direction to the State to provide admission
under the sports quota in a Government seat.
18. In S. Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh and
Others [(2020) 17 SCC 465], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
where the action of the authorities is found to be arbitrary and in
breach of the applicable rules, regulations, or prospectus, thereby
affecting the rights of students, and where a meritorious candidate
has approached the Court at the earliest without any delay, the
Court may mould the relief and direct that admission be granted to
such candidate in the next academic year by issuing appropriate
- 12 -
directions. It was further held that the grant of compensation could
be an additional remedy but not a substitute for restitutionary
remedies. The Court also observed that, in appropriate cases,
compensation may be awarded to a meritorious candidate who
could not be granted the relief of admission in the same academic
year.
19. In National Medical Commission v. Mothukuru Sriyah
Koumudi and Others [(2021) 14 SCC 805], the Hon'ble Supreme
Court disapproved of disturbing admissions that had already been
granted.
20. In the present case, the course of action urged by the
petitioner cannot be accepted, as it would result in disturbing the
academic careers of several students, including those admitted
under the sports quota. If a direction were to be issued to admit the
petitioner against a seat reserved under the sports quota, the entire
admission counseling process for the Academic Year 2022-23
would have to be reopened. Consequently, candidates who
secured admission under the sports quota would be displaced.
Furthermore, the last candidate admitted would stand displaced
after nearly three years, and the possibility of such candidate
securing admission under any other quota at this stage cannot be
- 13 -
overlooked. Such an exercise has been expressly disapproved by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments referred to supra. It is
also pertinent to note that the petitioner has not expressed
willingness to rejoin the first year of the MBBS course in the current
academic year against a seat reserved under the sports quota.
21. In the light of the aforesaid reasoning, the review petition is
meritless. Accordingly dismissed.
However, it is submitted that the State Government has not
paid the compensation as directed by this Court. Learned
Government Advocate submits that, in view of the review petition
filed by the petitioner seeking admission under the sports quota,
the compensation was not paid.
In view of the dismissal of the review petition, the
respondent-State is directed to pay the compensation to the
petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of this order.
In view of disposal of main appeal, pending interlocutory
application, if any, stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(N. V. ANJARIA)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
VBS
