Allowed

Ajay Anand v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Jan 2023WP/23996/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed a writ petition challenging Rule 5 of the Karnataka Admission Rules, 2006, which barred Overseas Citizens of India (OCI) from applying for government medical/Dental seats. The court held the rule illegal and discriminatory, allowing the petition based on a Division Bench precedent.

What did the court decide?

The petition challenging Rule 5 of the Admission Rules, 2006, was allowed; the petitioner is entitled to participate in the CET-2017 seat selection and counselling process.

Ajay Anand Vs the State of Karnataka — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 23996 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 23996 OF 2017 (EDN-CET)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

AJAY ANAND,

¶9

AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, S/O ANAND SITARAM, NO.425, 16TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN, 6TH SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 102. REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN ANAND SITARAM.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. AJOY KUMAR PATIL., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMITHRA R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, MS BUILDINGS, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶15

KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY, SAMPIGE ROAD, 18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 012. REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.

¶16

THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS

¶17

¶18

WP No. 23996 of 2017

¶19

SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF OVERSEAS INDIAN AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK,

¶20

NEW DELHI - 110 001.

¶21

THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110 001.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, A.G.A., FOR R1, SRI.N.K.RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2, SRI. APPANNA M.S., ADVOCATE FOR K.S. BHEEMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4)

¶24

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT RULE 5 OF THE KARNATAKA SELECTION OF CANDIDATES FOR ADMISSION TO GOVERNMENT SEATS IN PROFESSIONAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS RULES, 2006 IN SO FAR AS IT STIPULATES THAT "NO CANDIDATES IS ELIGIBLE FOR ADMISSION TO GOVERNMENT SEATS UNLESS HE IS A CITIZEN OF INDIA" IS ILLEGAL, DISCRIMINATORY, ARBITRARY AND VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14 AND 15 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND CONTRARY AND REPUGNANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT, 1955 AND THE INDIAN MEDICAL COUNCIL ACT, 1956 AND SET ASIDE THE SAME AND ETC.,

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRILIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

¶28

WP No. 23996 of 2017

¶29

ORDER

¶30

The petitioner in this writ petition has prayed for grant of the following reliefs :

¶31

“1. To declare that Rule 5 of the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for admission to Government Seats in Professional Educational Institutions Rules, 2006 in so far as it stipulates that "No candidate is eligible for admission to Government seats unless he is a Citizen of India" is illegal, discriminatory, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 & 15 of the Constitution of India and contrary and repugnant to the provisions of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 and the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and set aside the same;

¶32

2) to declare that the petitioner is eligible and entitled to participate in the seat selection and counselling process of CET-2017 and entitled to secure admission to Government seats in Medical/Dental Courses in various Government/Private Medical/Dental Colleges in Karnataka.”

¶33

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) and has completed his X and

¶34

¶35

WP No. 23996 of 2017

¶36

XII Standard CBSE Examination from National Public School,

¶37

Koramangala, Bengaluru. The Karnataka Examinations Authority (KEA) has invited online applications on 03.06.2017 for registering for CET-2017 for Medical/Dental counseling from those who have appeared for NEET-2017. However, a condition has been imposed that only a Citizen of India is eligible to apply based on Rule 5 of the Admission Rules of 2006. Hence the Petitioner is unable to login to the KEA website and register for CET-2017 to participate in Medical/Dental counseling for seat selection process for Government seats in Government/Private Medical/Dental Colleges in Karnataka. Though the Petitioner is a US Citizen, he was brought up in India and has been studying in India for the past more than 12 years from nursery to XII standard. The KEA has allowed students of OCI category to submit online applications during the previous year for CET2016. Further, this year, this Hon'ble Court has permitted OCI students to participate in the seat selection process in CET2017. The condition imposed that only Citizens of India can apply during the present year for CET-2017 is arbitrary and discriminatory. Hence the Petitioner has filed the above writ

¶38

¶39

WP No. 23996 of 2017

¶40

petition challenging the validity of Rule 5 of the Admission Rules.

¶41

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for respondent No.1, Sri N K Ramesh, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and K S Bheemaiah, learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4.

¶42

The petition pertains to admission of students of OCI in the Government quota for the batches prior to 2021 more specifically the batches of 2017-18 and 2019-20.

¶43

It is the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that Rule 5 of the Admission Rules and clause 4(1) of the brochure at Annexure-B is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unreasonable, capricious and violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India and the provisions of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’).

¶44

5.1 It is his further contention that the persons registered as OCI are eligible to appear for NEET-2017 and are also eligible for 15% All India Quota Medical seats. The other states like Kerala, Telangana and Maharashtra have held that OCI to

¶45

¶46

WP No. 23996 of 2017

¶47

be treated on par with Indian Citizens for the purpose of admission.

¶48

5.2 In view of the above, he contends that Rule 5 of the Admission Rules is illegal, discriminatory and arbitrary. Therefore, the same requires to be struck down. He further contends that Rule 5 of the Admission Rules is contrary to the provisions of the Indian Citizenship Act and Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. He also adds that the Central Government has amended the Citizenship Act and inserted Sections 7-A, 7- B, 7-C and 7-D by Act 6 of 2004 with effect from 03.12.2004 which is now being substituted by Act 1 of 2015 with effect from 06.01.2015.

¶49

5.3 The sum and substance of his arguments is that the persons registered as OCI under the Act have all the rights and are entitled to all benefits conferred on Indian Citizens and that the persons registered as OCI would have to be treated on par with Indian Citizens for all practical purposes except for few limited purposes. He further contends that respondent No.3 has issued a Gazette Notification dated 05.01.2009 clearly stating that the persons registered as OCI under 7-A of the Act shall be

¶50

¶51

WP No. 23996 of 2017

¶52

entitled parity with NRIs to appear for the All India Pre-Medical Test or such other tests to make them eligible for admission in pursuance of the provisions contained in the relevant acts.

¶53

5.4 It is further contention of learned counsel for petitioner that the Division Bench of this Court in WP.No.27761/2019 (EDN-MED) C/w WA.No.1177/2019 (EDNRES) has dealt with this matter in detail, wherein the writ appeal has been preferred by the State against writ petition No.7376-78/2019 and writ petition has been preferred by similarly placed students belonging to OCI category who assailed Rule 5 of the Admission Rules insofar as it relates to the words ‘and includes persons of Indian origin and overseas citizen of India’.

¶54

The aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench is squarely applicable to the fact and circumstances of this case. Accordingly, this writ petition will have to be allowed in terms of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforestated matters.

¶55

¶56

WP No. 23996 of 2017

¶57

In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed, in terms of judgment passed in WP.No.27761/2019 (EDN-MED) C/w WA.No.1177/2019 (EDN-RES).

¶58

Sd/JUDGE

¶59

¶60

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 65