IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT PETITION NOS.33666-33668 OF 2014 (EDN-MED-ADM) BETWEEN:
1. NITTE UNIVERSITY 6TH FLOOR UNIVERSITY ENCLAVE MEDICAL SCIENCES COMPLEX DERALAKATTE MANGALURU-575 018 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR PROF. DR. M. S. MOODITHAYA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.
2. NITTE EDUCATION TRUST 8TH FLOOR RAMABHAVAN COMPLEX KODIALBAIL MANGALURU-575 003 REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE MR. VISHAL HEGDE AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
3. MR. VISHAL HEGDE TRUSTEE NITTE EDUCATION TRUST 8TH FLOOR RAMABHAVAN COMPLEX KODIALBAIL MANGALURU-575 003.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI: M.V.SESHACHALA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI: ARAVIND V. CHAVAN, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS VIDHANA SOUDHA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT (MEDICAL EDUCATION) VIKASA SOUDHA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: SANDESH J. CHOUTA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL ALONG WITH SRI: VIKRAM HUILGOL, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 02.07.2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-L ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND ETC., ***** THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH, J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The first petitioner claims to be a deemed University conferred by the Government of India in accordance with Section 3 of the University Grant Commission Act (for short ‘UGC Act’). No aid is received from the State or the Central Government. The Second petitioner is the Trust which originally mooted the first petitioner. The third petitioner is one of the trustee of the second petitioner Trust.
2. That the petitioners-Institution in order to obtain a deemed university status, had to obtain a ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the Government. A request was made to the State Government. In response to the same, the Government issued ‘No Objection Certificate’ dated 17.10.2007 on a condition that the petitioners would have to surrender 25% of the seats to the Government in both Under Graduate and Post Graduate seats. The University Grant Commission by its Office Memorandum dated 24.03.2009 granted the status of “Declared as Deemed-to- be University under Section 3 of the UGC Act, 1956”. Consequently, the admission of the students, appointment of teachers were governed by the provisions of UGC Act. A Memorandum of Understanding was entered into between the petitioners and the State Government. Thereafter, 25% seats have been surrendered to the State Government.
3. Thereafter, the petitioners-Institution by a letter dated 23.03.2010 requested to drop the 25% quota being imposed on them. By a letter dated 27.04.2010, the Under Secretary to Government (Medical Education), exempted the petitioners from surrendering the seats to the extent of 25% to the Government. After having realized such a mistake, the State Government issued the impugned Government Order dated 02.07.2014 withdrawing the letter dated 27.04.2010 exempting the petitioners from surrendering the seats. It is this order, that is sought to be challenged herein.
4. Sri.M.V.Seshachala, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners’ Counsel, submits that the impugned Government order is unsustainable. That the question of compelling the petitioners to surrender 25% of seats is opposed to law. That none of the other similarly situated universities have been asked to surrender 25% of seats. It is the petitioners alone who have been asked to surrender the same. Therefore, the same is improper.
5. The same is disputed by the respondents’ Counsel through the statement of objections. They contend that there was a Memorandum of Understanding, based on which, the petitioners have offered to surrender 25% of the seats. It is an error, that the letter dated 27.04.2010 was issued. The said communication is beyond the terms between the petitioners and the State. Therefore, the said letter was unsustainable. In order to rectify the same, the impugned order has been passed. Hence, no interference is called for.
6. Heard learned Counsels.
7. As submitted by the petitioners’ Counsel, surrender of 25% of seats is based on the Memorandum of Understanding arrived at between the petitioners and the State. It is they who have offered 25% of the seats and the State having accepted the same, consequential orders have been passed by the State. Therefore, for the petitioners to go behind the said Memorandum of Understanding made by them and to seek parity based on the situation of the other Universities, is impermissible. There was no compulsion for the petitioners to surrender the seats. The petitioners have done so on their own volition based on the Memorandum of Understanding entered into between them and the State Government. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be permitted to go behind the consent given by them.
8. So far as the impugned order is concerned, the same emanates from the erroneous communication issued by the then Under Secretary to Government (Medical Education). Prima facie, he did not have the authority to issue the said letter. Any decision would have to be taken by the State and not by its Officers. We find no material to substantiate the plea that the communication dated 27.04.2010 exempting surrender of 25% seats to the petitioners, is a communication by the Government. We do not think that the said communication is by the State. It is only a communication by the Under Secretary. Having realized the folly, the State has issued the impugned order. The State is entitled to receive 25% of seats based on the Memorandum of Understanding arrived at between the petitioners and the State.
Under these circumstances, we find no good grounds to entertain the petitions. Consequently, the petitions being devoid of merit, are dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE *bgn/-