Allowed

Sri S Rahul v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Dec 2023WP/28330/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed a writ petition filed by a student who applied under the wrong OBC category for PGCET. The court permitted amendment of the application and directed the authority to treat the petitioner under the correct II(A) backward class category.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to amend application bearing No. 3920180445197. Respondent No.2 directed to treat petitioner as category II(A) of backward classes. (para 37-38)

Sri S Rahul Vs the State of Karnataka — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:46037 WP No. 28330 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 28330 OF 2023 (EDN-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI S RAHUL SON OF S. SRINIVASA BABBU, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS RESIDING AT No. 164/4 PRASANNA NILAYA, 3^RD MAIN, 4^TH CROSS, A KRISHNAPPA NAGAR, BEHIND LAND MARK APARTMENT, BANGALORE SOUTH CARMELARAM, BANGALORE - 560035

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. VINAY KUTTAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUNITHA GANGARAJU Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶14

KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SAMPIGE ROAD, 18^TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE - 560012 …RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA FOR R1 SRI. N.K. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶16

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:46037 WP No. 28330 of 2023

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO AMEND/MODIFY HIS CATEGORY TO II (A) IN THE POST GRADUATE COMMON ENTRANCE TEST (PG CET) APPLICATION BEARING NO. 3920180445197 AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE R-2 TO TREAT THE PETITIONER AS CATEGORY II (A) OF BACKWARD CLASSES IN THE STATE OF KARNATAKA.

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This writ petition is filed seeking for a mandamus permitting the petitioner to amend/modify his category to II(A) in the Post-Graduate Common Entrance Test (PGCET) application bearing No.3920180445197 and consequently direct respondent No.2 to treat the petitioner as Category II(A) of Backward Classes in the State of Karnataka.

¶21

Brief facts leading rise to filing of this writ petition are as under:

¶22

The petitioner belongs to Balajiga community of category II(A) backward classes. The said community is listed at Sl.No.167 of the central list of OBC's for the State

¶23

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:46037 WP No. 28330 of 2023

¶24

of Karnataka as published in the National Commission for the Backward Classes. Petitioner completed his X Std. on 07.05.2018 and subsequently completed his II PUC on 14.07.2020. The petitioner was interested in pursuing further education in Commerce and Business. Petitioner joined Christ Academy Institute for Advanced Studies to obtain decree in Bachelor of Commerce and completed his B.Com. degree. In order to pursue his MBA, petitioner appeared for PGCET 2023 and secured ranking of 17244. However, at the time of filing his application, by oversight and under wrong impression, the petitioner applied under II(B) category, though the petitioner belongs to II(A) category of backward classes. The petitioner has produced caste certificate which clearly discloses that the petitioner belongs to Balajiga community of category II(A). Hence this writ petition.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

¶26

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:46037 WP No. 28330 of 2023

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner belongs to II(A) category, due to inadvertence and under wrong impression, the petitioner applied under II(B) category and further the petitioner has produced the caste certificate which indicates that the petitioner belongs to II(A) category. Hence prayed to permit the petitioner to modify the application of the petitioner by allowing the writ petition.

¶28

Per contra, learned counsel for respondents

¶29

supports the action of the respondents and prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶30

Perused the records and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶31

Admittedly, the petitioner had completed his B.Com. course and applied for post-graduation in MBA. While applying, the petitioner under wrong impression, has shown that he belongs to category II(B), instead of category II(A). The petitioner in order to establish that he

¶32

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:46037 WP No. 28330 of 2023

¶33

belongs to category II(A), has produced Form-F vide Annexure-G which discloses that the petitioner belongs to category II(A). The contention of the petitioner is supported by document issued by the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk.

¶34

The petitioner while applying for the PGCET, under wrong impression, has applied under II(B) category, wherein the petitioner admittedly does not belong to II(B) category. In view of the documents produced i.e., Annexure-G, the petitioner belongs to category II(A). Thus, if the petitioner is not permitted to amend/modify the application, the petitioner will loose one academic year. Considering the interest of the petitioner, to meet the ends of justice, it would be necessary to issue direction to respondent No.3 to permit the petitioner to carry out amendment in the application. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following:

¶35

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:46037 WP No. 28330 of 2023

¶36

ORDER

¶37

The writ petition is allowed. Petitioner is permitted to carry out amendment in the application bearing No. 3920180445197.

¶38

Respondent No.2 is directed to treat the petitioner as candidate under category II(A) of backward classes.

¶39

SD/JUDGE

¶40

Sri S Rahul v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri S Rahul v. the State of Karnataka

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

Sajeeda Begum Vs Smt Saraswathamma

Sri Mahalinga Bhat Vs Giriyappa Gowda

Somashekar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Vijay Kumar Ravindra Mannur Vs State of Karnataka

Bangalore Institution for Higher Education and Research Vs State of Karnataka

Ritnand Balved Education Fundation Vs State of Karnataka