IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P.NOs.9517-9521/2019(EDN-RES) BETWEEN:
1. DR. KALASKAR AMRUTHA GANGAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS D/O SRI. GANGAKUMAR NO.1823, MARHOSHREE NIVAS BAKTAPUR ROAD, DEGLOOR NANDED DISTRICT MAHARASHTRA STAE – 431 717.
2. DR. RAGINI RAMRAO NAVATKE D/O SRI. RAMRAO AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT LAKSHMI NIVAS INFRONT OF LALBAHADUR SHASTRI SCHOOL, KRISHI COLONY, OLD AUSA ROAD LATUR, MAHARASHTRA - 413 512.
3. DR. MARIYAM AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS W/O MOHAMMED ABDULLAH KHAN R/AT 18-3-191, BILAL COLONY NEAR JASMIN COLLEGE CHIDRI ROAD, BIDAR KARNATAKA - 585 403.
4. DR. DEEPIKA DASHRATH SURYAWANSHI D/O SRI. DASHRATH AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT ADARSHNAGAR BINDUSARA COLONY B.P. ROAD, HOUSE NO.563 BEED, BEED DISTRICT MAHARASHTRA - 431 122.
5. DR. SHEETAL PURUSHOTHAM ZANWAR D/O PURUSHOTHAM ZANWAR AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT 2-1-76/1, ZANWAR HOSTEL OPP: MAHALAYA HOSPITAL BORBAN FACTORY, WAZEERBAD NANDED DISTRICT MAHARASHTRA STATE - 431 601.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR BAJANTRI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING SACHIVALAYA DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE - 560 003.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. Y.D. HARSHA, AGA R-1) THESE W.Ps. ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 TO RELEASE WITHHELD ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS AT THE TIME OF VERIFICATION OF RECORDS AS PER THE CHECK LIST ON 04.11.2018 VIDE ANNX-D SERIES, WITHIN A TIME FRAME SEPECIFIED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT WITHOUT INSISTING FOR PAYMENT OF RS. 50,000/- FOR RELEASE OF THE SAME.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Sri. Vijaya Kumar, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners and Sri. Y.D. Harsha, learned AGA for respondent No.1 and Sri. N.K. Ramesh, learned panel counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
2. The short point that arises for consideration in this writ petition is:
“Whether candidates/petitioners who have been allotted seats by second respondent in second round of allotment, not getting admitted to the colleges by remittance of fee or by surrendering said seats to the examination authority- Karnataka Examination Authority, would be entitled to return of the original documents without payment of Rs.50,000/- as specified in Clause 11.1 of the Chapter XIV?
3. Second respondent herein issued a notification calling for applications for admission to post Graduate Degree Course in Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani and Homoeopathy for the academic year 2018-2019. Last date prescribed under said notification for submission of application through online was fixed as 20.10.2018. Petitioners who are possessing degree in BAMS and being eligible for admission to post graduate decree, had submitted there applications through online and were called for verification of records by second respondent on 04.11.2018. Original degree certificate and other relevant original documents came to be handed over to second respondent by petitioners on 04.11.2018 as per acknowledgment produced along with present writ petitions vide Annexure-D series.
4. Petitioners who are called for counseling by Karnataka Examination Authority (for short ‘KEA’) in second round by online, were allotted seats in the colleges as against the subject specified thereunder. For the purposes of convenience and immediate reference names of the petitioners, date of counseling, subject for which allotment came to be made and college to which they were allotted are summarized in the tabular column herein below.
Sl.
No.
Name of the petitioner Date of counseling Subjection in which allotment is done Allotted college 1 Dr.Kalaskar Amrutha Gangakumar 2 Dr. Ragini Ramrao Navatke 12.11.2018 Roganidhana avum vikriti vigyan 12.11.2018 Rasashastra & Bhaisajya Kalpana S.D.M College of Ayurvedha & Hospital, Hassan Sri. BAsaveshwara Visyavardhaka Sangha Ayurvedic Medical College, Bagalkot 3 Dr. Mariyam 12.11.2018 Panchakarma Gavisiddeshwara Society & Ayurveda College, Koppal District 4 Dr. Deepika Dashrath Suryavanshi 5 Dr. Sheetal Zanwar 12.11.2018 Shalya Tantra 12.11.2018 Shalya Tantra Rajiv Gandhi Ayurvedic Medical College, Gadag District Sri Basaveshwar Vidyavardhak Sangha Ayurvedic Medical College, Bagalkot 5. As noticed hereinabove, on completion of second round counseling on 12.11.2018 and petitioners being allotted respective colleges, they did not get themselves admitted to the colleges so allotted to them and reasons assigned by them was that said colleges are far away from the place where they are residing and also due to personal reasons and as such petitioners-1, 2, 4 and 5 by communication through mail dated 13.11.2018 and 12.11.2018 vide Annexure-F series forwarded the mail surrendering seats or in other words, submitting their request for forfeiture of their claims to the seats allotted on the ground that they did not wish to take admission. Though, Sri. Vijaya Kumar Bajanthri, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners would contend that third petitioner had also forwarded mail to KEA, same is not available on record and nothing much is made out of the same, inasmuch as, joint representations had been submitted by all the petitioners on 14.11.2018 vide Annexure-G to second respondent, which would clearly indicate petitioners did not wish to take admission to the colleges, which they have been allotted.
6. After submitting their request for surrendering/forfeiting seats allotted to them, they sought for original documents, which they have submitted at the time of verification of records and had also made a request to second respondent to return said documents, which was declined on the ground that seats allotted online in the second round, cannot be permitted to be surrendered and insofar as, claim for return of original documents was concerned, second respondent intimated the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- each on account of candidates/petitioners failing to get admitted to the colleges, which they were allotted. Hence, petitioners are before this Court seeking for a writ of mandamus to direct second respondent to release the original documents withheld by the second respondent as per check list dated 04.11.2018 vide Annexure-D series within a timeframe without insisting for payment of Rs.50,000/- by each of the petitioner.
7. It is the contention of Sri. Vijaya Kumar Bajantri, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners that petitioners had forfeited or surrendered their seats even before commencement of MOP-UP round and said seats was available for being allotted to other candidates and there being no impediment in this regard since said seats being available in the Mop-Up round, question of directing petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- each, would not only be onerous but also contrary to the extant regulations and as such he prays for allowing the writ petitions.
8. Per contra, Sri. N.K. Ramesh, learned panel counsel appearing for second respondent who has filed statement of objections has reiterated grounds urged in the statement of objections and elaborates his submission by contending that if candidates who are allotted seats in the second round of counseling are permitted to surrender the same, necessarily they will have to pay fee of Rs.50,000/- to second respondent, inasmuch as, candidates who would be listed to take up the seats in second round would be deprived of same or alternatively such seat/s would remain unfilled without being allotted to any other candidate/s, which would not sub-serve the purpose of allotment of seats through online. Hence, he would contend that in order to ensure that there is check on the method adopted by the candidates of not getting admitted to the college for which they have been allotted, regulation has prescribed that such seats would not be available for being surrendered and in the event of forfeiture of said seats were to occur, necessarily they will have to pay forfeiture fee of Rs.50,000/- each and it is on this ground petitioners would be liable to pay Rs.50,000/- each as forfeiture fee and it is in consonance with extant regulations. Hence, he prays for dismissal of writ petitions.
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS ON THE POINT FORMULATED HEREIN ABOVE:
9. In order to appreciate rival contentions, it would be apt and appropriate to extract the regulations which have been pressed into service by the learned Advocates appearing for parties. Insofar as, process of allotment of seats and admission procedure is concerned same is governed by Chapter XI of the information bulletin issued by the second respondent. There is no dispute to the fact that in the instant case petitioners after having been allotted seats in the first round of allotment through online process had opted for online seat allotment in the second round and for said process candidates who are eligible for allotment of seats in the second round are required to submit the original documents and it is specified in the extant regulations to the following:
“Submission of original documents to attend 2nd round of seat allotment is mandatory. It is further stated that no excuse will be entertained if original documents are not deposited. The time and date for submission of documents will be notified in the website of KEA”.
10. It is pursuant to the said directions/guidelines issued under regulations, petitioners have submitted their original documents to KEA on 04.11.2018 as evident from the acknowledgment produced under Annexure-D series. In the second round of allotment of seats as already noticed hereinabove, petitioners were allotted seats in respective colleges. However, they did not get themselves admitted to the colleges which they had been allotted. On the other hand, they intended not to take admission in the said colleges and it is because of this precise reason, they have forwarded e-mail on 12.11.2018, 13.11.2018 as per Annexure-F series indicating thereunder they intend to forfeit their claim to the seat and not to take admission to the colleges they have been allotted. Though, in the writ petitions a plea has been raised that said colleges are far away from the place where they are residing and due to personal reasons, same is an after thought, it is not accepted. But fact remains unequivocally clear that petitioners were not interested in taking seats allotted to them by second respondent-examination authority. This was also followed by a joint representation submitted on 20.11.2018 vide Annexure-J to the second respondent clearly expressing their intent not to take admission in the colleges which has been allotted to them in the second round of allotment and with a request to return the original documents. In fact, under Chapter XI which relates to process of allotment of seats at the end a note has been specifically made which reads.
“surrendering of seats is not permitted; candidates who want to surrender the seat should surrender the seat at KEA before commencement of second round”.
This would clearly indicate that candidates who have been allotted seats in first round are required to attend counseling and submit their original documents in the colleges, which they have been allotted and then participate in the second round. After participating in the second round of counseling and payment of allotment fee, such candidates would not be empowered or entitled to surrender the seat so selected or allotted.
11. Be that as it may. Under Chapter XIII which governs the procedure for admission, it is clearly stated that candidates who are allotted seats should get themselves admitted to the allotted colleges allotted to them by furnishing relevant documents within the time notified in the ‘”allotment letter/admission order” provided by Karnataka Examination Authority failing which allotted seat will automatically stand cancelled.
12. Under Chapter XIV consequences of forfeiture is specified and under clause 11.1, it is specifically stated to the following effect:
“11.1 . Every candidate including in-service candidate shall pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the Government in case he/she on payment of fees during counseling and fails to join the course on the specified date mentioned in the admission order”.
Thus, as could be seen from the above procedure prescribed under extant regulation, candidates who have been allotted seats in the second round of counseling is required to take allotment order/ admission order issued by KEA, submit the same to the college to which they have been allotted, pay the necessary fee and get themselves admitted. It is thereafter procedure of admission gets completed. If for any reason the students so allotted in the second round of counseling do not get admitted himself/herself or fails to get admitted to the colleges so allotted, said seat would automatically go or would be available for being allotted to other candidates in Mop-Up round, which is the final round. Extant regulations when read in a holistic manner, it would clearly indicate that in order to ensure conditions specified thereunder are adhered to, so as to prevent cartel being created between students and colleges and to ensure that unfilled seats would not go back to the management for being allotted under management quota, extant rules provide sufficient safeguards. There may be instances where students after having paid fee would not get admitted to the college so allotted. However, if the allotment letter/admission order is not issued by the KEA question of students who have been allotted a college in the second round of counseling getting admitted to college would not arise and it is only when allotment order/admission order is issued, issue of getting admitted would arise. As such seats would not be available to be thrown into hotchpotch of available seats for being allotted to the candidates in the Mop- Up round.
13. In the instant case, Sri. N.K.Ramesh, learned panel counsel appearing for second respondent would not dispute the fact that there was Mop-Up round in respect of seats allotted to the petitioners and in the same mop up round seats allotted to petitioner Nos.1 and 3 have been filled up by other candidates. It would clearly indicate or disclose that in the mop up round five seats which were allotted to the respective petitioners were available for being taken by other candidates who were waiting in the wings. For reasons best known only three candidates have not taken seats allotted to petitioner Nos. 2, 4 and 5. This would clearly indicate that seats which were allotted to the petitioners have not been blocked or in other words, it was available in the mop up round also. Thereby it cannot be gainsaid by respondents that petitioners who were allotted colleges had failed to join the course and as such said seats were not available for being allotted in mop-up round to other aspiring students/candidates. Clause 11.5 when read by giving a plain interpretation it would clearly disclose that candidates who are allotted seats through counseling on failing to join the course on the specified date mentioned in the admission order then only they would be liable to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the examination authority. Thus, candidates would get a right to admission when issuance of allotment letter/admission order is issued. In the instant case, such a situation had not occurred or in other words, allotment letter/order of admission had not yet been issued to the petitioners and it is because of this precise reason, seats allotted to the petitioners were also put up for being allotted to others in the mop up round of counseling. Hence, contention of second respondent that petitioners would be liable to pay fee as contemplated under chapter 11.5, cannot be accepted. Though, seats were allotted to petitioners in the respective colleges as indicated hereinabove, which seats probably would have been taken by such students who had appeared in the second round of counseling, if petitioners had not opted for selection of seats in second round, in other words, petitioners not knowing the consequences of it have adopted said procedure and no doubt requires to be deprecated. However, it requires to be observed that in the peculiar circumstances of facts obtained in the instant case, this order shall not be construed as a precedent.
For the reasons aforestated, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (1) Writ petitions are allowed.
(2) Writ of mandamus is issued to second respondent to release the original documents submitted by the petitioners on 04.11.2018 as per check list-Annexures-D series within two weeks from today without insisting for payment of Rs.50,000/- from each of the petitioners.
(3) No order as to costs.
In view of petition being allowed, I.A.No.1/19 for early hearing does not survive for consideration. Hence, I.A.No.1/19 is rejected.
SD/- JUDGE RU