IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION Nos.19612 – 19616/2015 (EDN – AD) BETWEEN :
1. THE VICE-PRINCIPAL THE OXBRIDGE COLLEGE OF PHARMACY (FORMERLY C.N.K.REDDY COLLEGE OF PHARMACY) No.7 & 9, MAHADESHWAR NAGAR EXTENSION VISHWANEEDAM POST, HEROHALLI CROSS MAGADI MAIN ROAD BANGALORE-560091.
2. ABUELBISHR ALI BISHAR MOHAMAD 3. ALI IDRIS ADAM ABDALL 4. AMANI ABDALBAGI ESHAG HASSAN 5. EHAB AHMED OSMAN ISHAQ 6. MAAHID YOUNIS EL BASHIR ELHASSAN 2, 3, 5 & 6 ARE R/AT OXBRIDGE BOYS HOSTEL, No.28 2ND MAIN, 2ND CROSS, HEGGANAHALI CROSS VISWANEEDAM POST BANGALORE – 91.
RESPONDENT No.4 IS R/AT OXBRIDGE GIRLS HOSTEL S-561, 12TH MAIN, 12TH CROSS 2ND STAGE, BHARATHINAGAR BEL LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560091. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI JOSE SEBASTIAN, ADV) AND :
1. THE REGISTRAR THE RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, KARNATAKA 4TH ‘B’ BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE – 560041.
2. THE SECRETARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI N.K.RAMESH, ADV FOR R1 SRI H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD, AGA FOR R2) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 F THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ANNEXURE-A DATED 18.12.2014 AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENT No.1 TO APPROVE THE ADMISSION OF FIVE STUDENTS OF THE PETITIONER COLLEGE FOR B.PHARMA COURSE (1. ABEUL BISHAR ALI BISHR MOHMED, 2. ALI IDRIS ADAM ABDALLA, 3. MISS. AMANI ABDULBAGI ESHAG HASSAN, 4. EHAB AHMED OSMAN ISHAQ, 5. MAAHID YOUNIS ELABASHIR). ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioners have challenged the order of the respondent No.1 at Annexure-A to the writ petition.
3. The petitioner Nos.2 to 6 are the students of the petitioner No.1 college. These students had approached this Court in Writ Petition Nos.27570/2014 and connected matters, seeking for a direction to direct the first respondent university to grant approval to the admission of the students of the petitioner No.1 college. This Court by order dated 1st July 2014, placing reliance on the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition Nos.18613-626/2014 disposed on 28.04.2014, has directed the first respondent to approve the admissions of the students of the petitioner college and allow them to take examination subject to payment of penalty in a sum of Rs.2,000/- per student and the students meeting other academic eligibility criteria. Penalty directed to be borne by the petitioner college. It is the grievance of the petitioners that despite the directions issued by this Court in the said writ petitions, the respondent No.1 university has issued the order dated 18.12.2014 (Annexure-A) directing the petitioner No.1 to discharge the petitioner Nos.2 to 6 as their admissions not being approved since, on verification of passport/visa it was found that the date of their entry into India was subsequent to the last date of commencement of course i.e., 30.07.2013. The learned counsel submits that the respondent No.1 university cannot re-open the issue which has already reached finality in terms of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition Nos.27570/2014 and connected matters. In deed, affidavits are also submitted by the petitioners to the effect that the College Authorities had conducted extra classes to cover up the earlier portions. In such circumstances, there is no impediment to the respondent No.1 university to approve the admissions of the students who have appeared for the examination of B.Pharma pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court and are completing the course by May 2017.
4. Learned counsel Sri.N.K.Ramesh, appearing for the respondent No.1 submits that earlier order passed by this Court was subject to students meeting other academic eligibility criteria. As such, on verification, it was found by the university that the students herein, have entered into India subsequent to 30.07.2013 and due to the shortage of attendance, petitioners are not entitled for approval of admissions.
5. The order passed by this Court in Writ Petition Nos.27570/2014 and connected matters indicates that the petitioner No.1 institution approached this Court seeking a direction to the first respondent to grant approval to the admissions of the students of the petitioner college. This Court directed the first respondent to approve the admissions of the students of the petitioner college and allow them to take examinations subject to payment of penalty in a sum of Rs.2,000/- per student and the students meeting other academic eligibility criteria. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1-university, that all the students who sought for approval for admissions to B.Pharma course of the petitioner No.1 institution were approved except these petitioners since their passport/visa indicate their arrival to India subsequent to the last date for commencement of the course i.e., 30.07.2013. It is the specific case of the students that due to certain visa related problems, they could not attend the classes from the date mentioned by the university in the calendar of events. However, the College Authorities had conducted the extra classes to cover up the earlier portions. The petitioner No.1- institution also supports the contentions of the students, in as much as the institution conducting special classes to these students, to cover up the portions. However, considering the earlier order passed by this Court and in view of the interim orders passed by this Court, the students have appeared for the examination of the B.Pharma course and now at the fag end of the course, their approval for admissions cannot be denied.
6. In the fitness of things, it would be appropriate to direct the first respondent university to approve the admissions of the petitioner Nos.2 to 6 herein, subject to payment of penalty of Rs.10,000/- to each student, payable by the petitioner No.1-College within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.
7. It is made clear that the penalty is imposed on the petitioner No.1 as a deterrent measure so that such instances shall not recur in future, wherein the life of the students’ is involved.
8. It is further made clear that this order shall not be treated as a precedent. It is considering the peculiar facts of the present case, the first respondent is directed to approve the admissions of the students in order to safeguard the interest of the students.
Accordingly, the writ petitions stand disposed of in terms of the above.
Sd/- JUDGE NC