Dismissed

Karavali Ayurvedic Medical College Hospital and Research Centre v. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Science

Karnataka HC21 Jul 2023WP/4780/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed by a college and students seeking a mandate for examination forms was dismissed. The court held that students lacked eligibility due to low NEET scores under 2018 regulations, meaning the college had no right to admit them and the university had no duty to approve such admissions.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was held devoid of merits and was dismissed; pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.

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

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:25429 WP No. 4780 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 4780 OF 2023 (EDN-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

KARAVALI AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE, NEERMARGA, MANGALORE - 575 029. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SRI. ANIL KUMAR G.

¶8

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶9

HARSHAL PADMAKUMAR PATIL, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, S/O PADMAKAR DAGADU PATIL, R/AT POST DIGHASHI, TAL BHIWANDI, DIST THANE - 421 302, MAHARASHTRA.

¶10

SUMIT SUNIL THAKRE, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, S/O SUNIL DAMODAR THAKARE, NO.B/304, GAURI PRASAD CHS, PARSIK NAGAR, KHAREGAON, KALWA, THANE, MAHARASHTRA - 400 605.

¶11

DIVYANI RAJENDRA KHOND, D/O RAJENDRA KHOND,

¶12

¶13

NC: 2023:KHC:25429 WP No. 4780 of 2023

¶14

AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/AT ALLIPUR TAHSIL HINGANGHAT, WARDHA DISTRICT, MAHARASHTRA - 442 302.

¶15

DISHA PANDIT JADHAV, D/O PANDIT BALIRAM JADHAV, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, R/AT SHANTI NIWAS, MAHESH NAGAR, NEAR TO MONORA CHAUK, DIGRAS, YAVATMAL DISTRICT, MAHARASHTRA - 445 203.

¶16

SUMAIYA, D/O A FAYAZ, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, R/AT NO.09, P AND T LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE, 2ND PHASE, RAJIVNAGAR, RING ROAD, MYSORE - 570 019.

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI. SAMPATH A., ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE, 4TH "T" BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 041. REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶21

…RESPONDENT

¶22

(BY SRI. GIRISH KUMAR R., ADVOCATE)

¶23

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:25429 WP No. 4780 of 2023

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO RELEASE THE EXAMINATION APPLICATION FORMS OF PETITIONER NO.2 TO 6 STUDENTS FOR ALL THE ACADEMIC YEARS TILL COMPETITION OF THEIR RESPECTIVE COURSE AND PERMIT THEM TO APPEAR ALL ACADEMIC YEAR EXAMS WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY INTERRUPTION AND ETC.,

¶25

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

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The captioned petition is filed by the college and students seeking a mandamus to direct the respondent/university to release the examination application forms to enable petitioners No.2 to 6 to take examinations for all the academic years till completion of the respective course.

¶28

Petitioner No.1/college has admitted petitioners

¶29

No.2 to 6 for the academic year 2020-21 for the BMS course. The petitioners, feeling aggrieved by the respondent/university for not releasing application forms to the present petitioners No.2 to 6, have knocked the

¶30

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:25429 WP No. 4780 of 2023

¶31

doors of the Writ Court. This Court, vide order dated 07.03.2023, permitted petitioners No.2 to 6 to deposit the tuition fee, and respondent/university was directed to issue hall tickets to enable petitioners No.2 to 6 to attend the ensuing examinations held on 14.03.2023. This Court, while granting an interim order, however, held that the interim order would be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. It was made clear that petitioners are not entitled to claim equity.

¶32

Learned counsel appearing for

¶33

respondent/university has placed on record the results of petitioners No.2 to 6 in the entrance conducted by NEET. Referring to the marks secured by petitioners No.2 to 6, who all belong to the OBC category, he would contend that these students do not possess the eligibility to pursue the BMS course. Referring to their marks, he would point out that none of the students have scored the prescribed percentage as indicated in the 2018 regulations.

¶34

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:25429 WP No. 4780 of 2023

¶35

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the

¶36

respondent/university.

¶37

The regulation 2(d)(i) and (ii) of 2018 Rules

¶38

reads as under:

¶39

(d) (i) There shall be a uniform entrance examination for all medical institutions at the undergraduate level, namely the National Eligibility Entrance Test (NEET) for admission to undergraduate course in each academic year and shall be conducted by an authority designated by the Central Government.

¶40

(ii) In order to be eligible for admission to undergraduate course for an academic year, it shall be necessary for a candidate to obtain minimum of marks at 50^th percentile in the 'National Eligibility Entrance Test for under-graduate course' held for the said academic year:

¶41

The documents placed on record by the

¶42

university clearly indicate that petitioner No.2 has secured 85 marks, petitioner No. 3 has secured 93 marks, petitioner No. 3 has secured 39 marks, petitioner No. 5

¶43

has secured 103 marks, and petitioner No. 6 has secured 36 marks. These students belong to the OBC category, and none of the students have secured more than 40% of

¶44

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:25429 WP No. 4780 of 2023

¶45

the marks; therefore, they do not possess the requisite eligibility to pursue the BMS course. If they do not possess

¶46

the eligibility to pursue the BMS course, petitioner No.1/college could not have admitted them to the course. If petitioners No.2 to 6 are not eligible, they do not have any legal right to pursue the course; equally, there is no

¶47

corresponding duty on the part of the respondent/university in approving their admissions for want of eligibility. Therefore, no direction can be issued to the respondent/university.

¶48

In view of discussion made supra, I proceed to pass the following:

¶49

ORDER

¶50

(i) The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed;

¶51

The pending interlocutory applications, if any, does not survive for consideration and stands disposed of.

¶52

hdk

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

Karavali Ayurvedic Medical College Hospital and Research Centre v. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Science

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karavali Ayurvedic Medical College Hospital and Research Centre v. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Science

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

Mr Ubed Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Balasubramani S N Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Kumar Ravi Vs Sri v P Amarnatha Reddy

M Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Nayak M Vs Svc Co-Operative Bank Limited

Sri Alevuru Premraj Kini Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Shivaleela, Vs Sri. Shivakumar