Allowed

Neelaganga Ayurvedic Medical College Hospital and Research Center v. the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

Karnataka HC10 Jul 2023WP/13082/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The high court directed the University of Health Sciences to approve admissions for 19 students against whom the college claimed technical failures. The court allowed the writ petition, ordered the university to upload approved admissions, and directed the college to pay exemplary costs and provide an undertaking against future violations.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent to approve admissions of petitioners 2 to 20; college to deposit Rs. 10,00,000 as costs and provide undertaking against future cut-off violations.

Neelaganga Ayurvedic Medical College Hospital and… — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:23817 WP No. 13082 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 13082 OF 2023 (EDN-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

NEELAGANGA AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTER YERBHAG, BASAVA KALYAN DIST BIDAR BY ITS NEELAGANGA EDUCATION TRUST, NO.03, 3^RD MAIN, 4^TH CROSS, JYOTHI NAGAR, MUNESHWAR LAYOUT, CHIKKA BETTA HALLI,

¶9

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

VIDYARANYAPURA, BENGALURU-79 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT DR ANITHA W/O SHANKARAGOUDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC: PRESIDENT, NEELAGANGA AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTER

¶11

SRI FAIZAN KHURESHI S/O LATIF, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,

¶12

SRI IDANLKANTE VAISHNVI D/O PRADEEP AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS

¶13

DHUMAL SHRUSTI D/O LIMBRAJ

¶14

AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:23817 WP No. 13082 of 2023

¶17

GIRI SNEHA D/O ANANTA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS

¶18

WATHORE SANJANA D/O SANTHOSH AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS

¶19

KALE KALYANI D/O KAKASAHEB AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS

¶20

PHAD RUTUJA D/O JAYAPAL AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS

¶21

GORE SNEHA D/O BALAKRISHNA

¶22

AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS

¶23

DHARADE VAISHNAVI D/O VIJAY KUMAR AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS

¶24

PINJAN PRANAV S/O PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS

¶25

HIPPARKAR GAJANAN S/O DILEEP AGED 22 YEARS

¶26

SHAIKH SIMARAN D/O NOOR MOHAMMAD AGED 22 YEARS

¶27

¶28

NC: 2023:KHC:23817 WP No. 13082 of 2023

¶29

SADIYA

¶30

D/O MUKTHAR PATEL AGED 20 YEARS

¶31

DUGAD PRAKARSHA D/O KANHIAHALAL AGED 21 YEARS

¶32

VAISHNAVI KALSHETTY D/O VIJAYKUMAR AGED 20 YEARS

¶33

GAWARI PRASHANTH S/O PUNAJI AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS

¶34

NAMDAS APEKSHA D/O BABAN

¶35

AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS

¶36

H D ANITHA D/O DYAMANAGOUDA AGED 20 YEARS

¶37

GUTTHE SANKET S/O JITENDRA

¶38

AGEDA BOUT 20 YEARS

¶39

ALL ARE STUDENTS R/O NEELAGANGA HOSTEL HUMNABAD AND RAJESHWAR TQ BASAVAKALYAN DIST BIDAR

¶40

…PETITIONERS

¶41

(BY SRI. GURUDEV I GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶42

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:23817 WP No. 13082 of 2023

¶43

AND:

¶44

THE RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES 4^TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU REP BY ITS REGISTRAR

¶45

…RESPONDENT

¶46

(BY SRI.GIRISH KUMAR.R, ADVOCATE (VK NOT FILED)

¶47

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO ACCEPT AND APPROVE THE ADMISSIONS OF THE P-2 TO 20 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C TO C-18 SERIES IN RESPECT OF 1ST YEAR BAMS COURSE FOR THE ACADEMIC SESSION 2021-22 AND ETC.,

¶48

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶49

ORDER

¶50

The captioned writ petition is filed seeking the

¶51

following reliefs:

¶52

"1. Issue a Writ of mandamus directing the Respondent to accept and approve the Admissions of the Petitioners No.2 to 20 produced at Annexure-C to C-18 series in respect of 1st year BAMS course for the academic session 2021-22.

¶53

2. Issue a Writ of mandamus directing the Respondent to consider the representation dated 14.06.2023 produced as Annexure-H.

¶54

3. Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble court deems fit under the circumstances of the present case

¶55

- 5 - NC: 2023:KHC:23817 WP No. 13082 of 2023

¶56

including an order for costs may kindly be passed in the interest of justice and equity."

¶57

The first petitioner-college runs an Ayurvedic

¶58

and Medical College at Yerbagh and is imparting

¶59

education in Ayurvedic course. The first petitioner-college having secured permission from National Council of Indian System of Medicines with intake of 60 seats invited applications for admission for first year BAMS Course for the academic year 2021-22. The first petitioner-college claims that though applications were received well within time and an attempt was made to upload all admission forms, the respondent-University failed to furnish the User name and Password till 9.5.2022. The first petitionercollege claims that last date for uploading the applications was 10.5.2022. It is further claimed that, being a new institution, it was successful in uploading only 42 applications and on account of technical reasons, the applications of petitioners 2 to 20 could not be uploaded.

¶60

3. The first petitioner-college claims that several

¶61

correspondences were made and the same was brought to

¶62

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:23817 WP No. 13082 of 2023

¶63

the notice of respondent-University seeking approval of admission of petitioners 2 to 20. It is contended that respondent-University assured the first petitioner-college that approval would be granted to the remaining students i.e. petitioners 2 to 20. It is further contended that on account of inaction on the part of the respondentUniversity, a representation was made to open portal to enable the first petitioner-college to upload the admissions of petitioners 2 to 20. Feeling aggrieved by the inaction of respondent-University in not approving the admissions of petitioners 2 to 20, the first petitioner-college along with students who are arrayed as petitioners 2 to 20 are before this Court seeking a mandamus against respondentUniversity.

¶64

The respondent-University on receipt of notice, to counter the grounds urged in the writ petition, has filed a memo on 10.7.2023 and has placed on record the students' list sent by first petitioner-college to the University. Further, the communication dated 16.12.2022

¶65

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:23817 WP No. 13082 of 2023

¶66

made by the first petitioner-college to respondentUniversity along with the list of approved admissions as against the total sanctioned students of 66 are placed on record . The University has approved admissions of only 41 out of 42 sent by the first petitioner-college.

¶67

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for respondent-University.

¶68

The case on hand clearly depicts the manner in which the colleges in blatant violations of Rules and Regulations are admitting students beyond cut-off date. The case on hand also depicts that the first petitionercollege knowing fully well that they cannot admit students beyond the cut-off date has indulged in admitting petitioners 2 to 20 much after the cut-off date. The standard narrative by the education institutions that on account of net work problem and other technical issues, they have failed to upload the list of all the students lacks credentials and on the face of it appears to be a false

¶69

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:23817 WP No. 13082 of 2023

¶70

statement. As per the time stipulated by NCIS, the last date to take admission was fixed on or before 10.5.2022.

¶71

On 9.5.2022, the college has uploaded the list of 42 students seeking approval. If first petitioner-college had admitted petitioners 2 to 20 on or before 10.5.2022, nothing prevented the college to upload the remaining list of 19 students. The fact that, the college had already uploaded list of 42 students further strengthens the suspicious act of college in admitting additional 19 students beyond the cut-off date. This fact stands substantiated by their own communication dated 16.5.2022 which is placed on record by respondentUniversity at document No.3. The college has sent a communication dated 16.5.2022 indicating that original documents of 42 students is submitted online and therefore, a request is made for approval of their admissions. This document negatives the false narrative pleaded in the writ petition. If, as on 16.5.2022, the college had not only admitted 42 students but also additional 19 students before the cut-off date, the same

¶72

¶73

NC: 2023:KHC:23817 WP No. 13082 of 2023

¶74

could have been indicated in the communication dated 16.5.2022.

¶75

One more disturbing aspect, which is brought to the notice of this Court is evident from document No.4. As per document No.4, the respondent-University has

¶76

approved only admissions of 41 students. The date of approval is dated 16.7.2022. Therefore, the college was well aware and had knowledge that only 41 students' admission is approved by respondent-University. Therefore, though the cause of action arose to the college in August 2022, the doors of this Court are knocked by filing this writ petition only on 20.6.2023 when the examinations are scheduled to commence from 25^th of this month. Similar modus operandi is adopted by the first petitioner-college. The practice of approaching the writ Court at eleventh hour by projecting that the interest of students are involved and then seeking interim orders has to be discouraged. It is high time that admissions taken beyond the cut-off date are to be viewed seriously. There

¶77

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:23817 WP No. 13082 of 2023

¶78

is no proper explanation forthcoming as to why the college has not taken steps from 15.7.2022 till 20.6.2023. Therefore, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the first petitioner-college which has consciously kept quite with a hope that they will get interim orders at the hands of this Court and also consequent regularization of admission of students taken beyond cut-off date.

¶79

Though this Court is conscious about the students' interest, before the admissions of petitioners 2 to 20 is approved, the first petitioner-college has to be saddled with exemplary cost for having admitted students beyond cut-off date. Further, an undertaking has to be secured from the first petitioner-college that they will not repeat this mistake henceforth, failing which the respondent-University is at liberty to initiate an enquiry and withdraw the affiliation.

¶80

For the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following:

¶81

11 - NC: 2023:KHC:23817 WP No. 13082 of 2023

¶82

ORDER

¶83

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶84

(ii) The respondent-University is hereby directed to approve the admissions and upload the approved admission list of petitioners 2 to 20, provided they meet the eligibility criteria.

¶85

(iii) The first petitioner-college shall deposit cost of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) with respondentUniversity within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It is made clear that

¶86

the cost shall be paid by the first petitioner's college account. In the event, any complaints are received by the respondent-University that amount is collected from the students i.e., petitioners 2 to 20 in this writ petition, the same would warrant stringent action at the hands of the respondent-University.

¶87

(iv) The first petitioner-college shall give an

¶88

undertaking that henceforth they will not admit students beyond cut-off date.

¶89

12 -

¶90

NC: 2023:KHC:23817 WP No. 13082 of 2023

¶91

(v) In the event, similar violation is found, liberty is

¶92

reserved to the respondent-University to hold an enquiry and take appropriate action and if the situation warrants, affiliation shall be withdrawn by the University.

¶93

Sd/JUDGE

¶94

ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

Neelaganga Ayurvedic Medical College Hospital and Research Center v. the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neelaganga Ayurvedic Medical College Hospital and Research Center v. the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Kavitha Vs Sri. H C Chandra Mohan

Smt Shashikala Vs Sri Ravichandra @ Ravichandra Reddy N

Mr Vinay Kumar Sinha Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Pramila Vs Deputy Commissioner

Rajanna S/O Late Munishamappa Since Dead by His Lrs Vs Sri. S.S.Puttaraju

Sri P Jagadish Vs the State of Karnataka