IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A N VENUGOPALA GOWDA WRIT PETITION NOS.53028-53029/2016 (EDN-MED-ADM) BETWEEN:
1.SOUBHAGYA SHARANAPPA BELERI AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, D/O. SHARANAPPA BELERI, AT POST RAMNAGAR, YELBURGA TALUK, KOPPAL DISTRICT 2.NIKHIL UMESH KAVERI AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, S/O. UMESH KAVERI, H. NO. 46, NEW JEWARGI ROAD, SANTOSH COLONY, GULBARGA 585102 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI AJOY KUMAR PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND:
1.THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES, (MEDICAL EDUCATION), VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560001 2.THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION ANAND RAO CIRCLE, BENGALURU 560009 3.MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA POCKET-14, SECTOR 8, DWARAKA, NEW DELHI-110077, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 4.RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES 4TH ‘T’ BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU 560041.
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR 5.ASSOCIATION OF MINORITY PROFESSIONAL COLLEGES IN KARNATAKA, UNIT NO.205, LAKSHMI APARTMENTS, NO.6, CORNWELL ROAD, LANGFORD GARDEN, RICHMOND TOWN, BENGALURU 560025.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 6. NAVODAYA EDUCATION TRUST ® A CHARITABLE EDUCATIONAL TRUST, POST BOX NO.26, NAVODAYA NAGAR, RAICHUR -584103, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SHRI.P.VIJAY KUMAR SON OF SHRI.PERIASWAMY, AGED 40 YEARS.
7. NAVODAYA MEDICAL COLLEGE POST BOX NO.26, NAVODAYA NAGAR, RAICHUR – 584103 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR IP & SA AND AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SHRI.P.VIJAY KUMAR SON OF SHRI.PERIASWAMY, AGED 40 YEARS.
8. VENKATESHA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY ® A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.19, HUTCHINS ROAD CROSS, ASHOKA ROAD, ST.THOMAS TOWN, BANGALORE – 560084, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY SHRI.K.P.NAGARAJ SHETTY, SON OF SHRI.KRISHNAIAH SHETTY, AGED 50 YEARS.
9. MVJ MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH HOSPITAL CHANNASANDRA, DANDUPALYA, KOLATHUR POST, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS-4, HOSKOTE, BANGALORE – 562114, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE – 560074 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY SHRI.K.P.NAGARAJ SHETTY, SON OF SHRI.KRISHNAIAH SHETTY, AGED 50 YEARS.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT NILOFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI N K RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI A.LOBO, ADVOCATE FOR R5 AND R6 TO R9) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-5 TO ALLOT MBBS SEATS TO THE PETITIONERS IN THE MEMBER COLLEGES BASED ON THEIR RANKING IN NEET-2016 UNDER GENERAL CATEGORY AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, JAYANT PATEL J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 to 9 have tendered the joint memo for settlement arrived at between the petitioners and respondent Nos.5 to 9.
2. The said joint memo is duly signed by the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties. As stated by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as for the respective respondents, the parties have duly signed the agreement in the joint settlement. An affidavit has also been filed by the Co-
ordinator of Association of Minority Professional Colleges in Karnataka.
3. The learned Advocates appearing for the petitioners as well as for respondent Nos.5 to 9 pray that in view of the aforesaid settlement, the writ petitions may be disposed of in terms of the settlement and the undertaking given by respondent Nos.5 to 9.
4. As such, since it is a settlement declared before the Court in the course of hearing by the petitioners and respondent Nos.5 to 9, we do not see any impediment in recording of such settlement.
5. However, Mr.N.Khetty, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.3 - MCI contended that without the presence of MCI, no order could be passed by this Court and in support of his contention, he relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Medical Council of India Vs. Swati Sethi And Others reported at (2004) 5 SCC 798 and the another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Medical Council of India Vs. Naina Verma And Others reported at (2005) 12 SCC 626 and he submitted that in view of the aforesaid two decisions, the prayer made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners for deletion of MCI may not be granted. He further contended that unless and until the matter is examined by the Court and the finding is recorded about any illegality committed by the College or the rights of the petitioners-students as the case may be, this Court may not even record the settlement. Therefore he submitted that the attempt to get the seal of the Court by way of settlement produced in the present proceedings may not be entertained.
6. We may at the outset also record that in furtherance to the settlement tendered between the petitioners and respondent Nos.5 to 9 in Clause (4) of the said settlement, the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties have also declared that the interse merit while granting admission shall be considered and then only, the admission shall be granted.
7. In view of the above, we find that following order deserves to be passed:
1. The settlement arrived at between the petitioners and respondent Nos.5 to 9 are taken on record with modification of Clause-4 as referred in earlier paragraph and it would bind to the parties to the settlement. However we clarify that the settlement shall not be binding to any of the regulatory authority who are respondent Nos.1 to 4 which includes MCI.
2. We also clarify that the present settlement shall not operate prejudicial to the interest of any of the student who are not parties to the proceedings or who may be having higher merit in comparison to the petitioners herein.
3. As we have clarified that the settlement would not be binding on respondent Nos.1 to 4 including MCI, we find that the order for deletion of MCI is not required.
Petitions shall stand disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE JT/-
Sd/- JUDGE