Allowed

Deepti Mahesh v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Jan 2023WP/8281/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged Rule 5 of Karnataka Admission Rules barring Overseas Citizens of India (OCI) from applying to government educational seats. The single judge allowed the petition, holding the rule illegal and discriminatory based on principles from a prior Division Bench judgment.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; Rule 5 of the Admission Rules set aside to the extent it bars OCI candidates from applying for CET-2017.

Deepti Mahesh Vs the State of Karnataka — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 8281 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. 8281 OF 2017 (EDN-CET)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

DEEPTI MAHESH, D/O MAHESHA GODEKERE SIDDALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, MINOR R/O 208, 3RD MAIN ROAD, MS RAMAIAH CITY, JP NAGAR 8TH PHASE, BNGALURU - 560 076, REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, MAHESHA GODEKERE SIDDALINGAIAH.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. AJOY KUMAR PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT (MEDICAL EDUCATION), MS BUILDINGS, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

WP No. 8281 of 2017

¶17

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

¶18

THE UNION OF INDIA

¶19

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

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R1; SRI. N.K.RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SMT.SINCHANA.M.R, CGSC FOR R3 & R4; SRI .APPANNA.M.S, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.K.S.BHEEMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION 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 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 CEITIZENSHIP ACT, 1955 AND THE INDIAN MEDICAL COUNCIL ACT, 1956 AND SET ASIDE THE SAME;

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

WP No. 8281 of 2017

¶26

ORDER

¶27

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

¶28

“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 to the provisions of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 and the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and set aside the same; 2) to declare that the petitioner is eligible to apply and appear for CET-2017 and entitled to secure admission to Government seats in Medical/Dental/Engineering/Architecture and other Professional Courses in various Government/Private Medical/Dental/Engineering. Architecture and other Professional Colleges in Karnataka.”

¶29

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) and is studying XII Standard in Sri Chaitanya Techno School, Bengaluru. The Karnataka

¶30

¶31

WP No. 8281 of 2017

¶32

Examinations Authority (KEA) invited online applications for CET-2017. However, a condition has been imposed that only a Citizen of India is eligible to apply based on Rule 5 of the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Government Seats in Professional Educational Institution Rules, 2006 (for short ‘the Admission Rules’). Hence the Petitioner was unable to login to the KEA website and register for CET2017. Though the Petitioner is a US Citizen and was born there, she was brought up in India and has been studying in India for the past 12 years from nursery to XII Standard. The KEA has allowed students of OCI/PIO category to submit online applications during the previous year for CET-2016. 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 petition challenging the validity of Rule 5 of the Admission Rules.

¶33

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

¶34

¶35

WP No. 8281 of 2017

¶36

The petition pertains to admission of students of OCI in

¶37

the Government quota for the batches prior to 2021 more specifically the batches of 2017-18 and 2019-20.

¶38

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

¶39

the Constitution of India and the provisions of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’).

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

¶43

WP No. 8281 of 2017

¶44

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.

¶45

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

¶46

that the persons registered as OCI under 7-A of the Act shall be 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.

¶47

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

¶48

¶49

WP No. 8281 of 2017

¶50

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’.

¶51

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.

¶52

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).

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

Deepti Mahesh v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepti Mahesh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pavankumar M Vs State of Karnataka

Ranganatha Reddy Vs Shamanna

Smt. Uma @ Soumya Vs Prathap M

Ajay Anand Vs the State of Karnataka

Sankalp Srivastava Vs the State of Karnataka

Ankitha Sri Lakshmi Keshava Vs the State of Karnataka