Partly allowed

Pranav Shastry v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Sept 2024WP/25051/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a Writ Petition filed by an OCI Cardholder seeking permission to participate in counselling for PG medical courses. The court held that OCI Cardholders registered prior to the 2021 notification change are entitled to be treated at par with Indian citizens. The respondents were directed to permit participation in all seat categories based on the Supreme Court jud

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was allowed to participate in online counselling for PG medical courses for all categories of seats, including government, private, GMP, and institutional seats, and to be treated at pa

Pranav Shastry Vs the State of Karnataka — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:39232-DB WP No. 25051 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. N.V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 25051 OF 2024 (EDN-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

PRANAV SHASTRY AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS S/O VENKATRAMANA SHASTRY CS 49, 2^ND CROSS 10^TH BLOCK, 2^ND STAGE NAGARABHAVI BENGALURU – 560 072

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI AJOY KUMAR PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by VASANTHAKUMARY B K

¶14

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES (MEDICAL EDUCATION) VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001

¶16

DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION IN KARNATAKA BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE &

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:39232-DB WP No. 25051 of 2024

¶19

RESEARCH INSTITUTE (OLD BUILDING) K R ROAD, FORT BENGALURU – 560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR

¶20

KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY SAMPIGE ROAD 18^TH CROSS MALLESWARAM BENGALURU – 560 012 REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

¶21

THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS MAJOR DHYAN CHAND NATIONAL STADIUM INDIA GATE NEW DELHI – 110 001

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI M.N. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R-1 & 2; SRI N.K. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-3; SRI ARVIND KAMATH K, ASGI A/W SMT. RESHMA THAMMAIAH, CGC FOR R-4)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF

¶25

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION DIRECTING RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO PARTICIPATE IN THE ONLINE

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:39232-DB WP No. 25051 of 2024

¶27

COUNSELLING TO BE CONDUCTED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT FOR ADMISSION TO PG MEDICAL DEGREE AND DIPLOMA COURSES FOR ALL CATEGORIES OF SEATS (GOVERNMENT SEATS IN GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE MEDICAL COLLEGES AND PRIVATE SEATS/GMP SEATS/INSTITUTIONAL SEATS IN PRIVATE MEDICAL COLLEGES) IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT IN WRIT PETITION (C) NO.891/2021 DATED 03.02.2023 (ANUSHKA RENGUNTHWAR & OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS REPORTED IN AIR 2023 SUPREME COURT 903) AND THE PROVISIONS OF THE KARNATAKA PROFESSIONAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS (REGULATION OF ADMISSION & DETERMINATION OF FEE) ACT, 2006 FOR WHICH COUNSELLING IS CONDUCTED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT KEA, ON THE BASIS OF HIS MERIT AND RANKING IN PG-NEET 2024 FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2024-25 AND ETC.

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:39232-DB WP No. 25051 of 2024

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and

¶31

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND

¶32

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶33

(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)

¶34

Heard learned advocate Mr. Ajoy Kumar Patil for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate Mr. M.N. Sudev Hegde for respondent Nos.1 and 2, learned advocate Mr. N.K. Ramesh for respondent No.3 and learned Additional Solicitor General of India Mr. K. Arvind Kamath with learned Central Government Counsel Smt. Reshma Thimmaiah for respondent No.4.

¶35

By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner prayed for the direction against respondent Nos.1 to 3 to permit him to participate in the online counselling to be conducted by respondent No.3-Karnataka Examinations Authority (KEA) for admission to Post Graduate (PG) Medical Degree and Diploma Courses for all categories of seats-Government seats in

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:39232-DB WP No. 25051 of 2024

¶37

Government and Private Medical Colleges and Private seats, GMP seats and institutional seats in Private Medical Colleges, in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anushka Rengunthwar and others Vs. Union of India and others [(2023) 11 SCC 209: AIR 2023 SC 903] and as per the provisions of the Karnataka Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Determination of Fee) Act, 2006, on the basis of the merit of the petitioner and his ranking in PG-NEET 2024 for the academic year 2024-25.

¶38

2.1 The next prayer was to direct respondent Nos.1 to 3 to permit the petitioner to participate in the online counselling process to be conducted by respondent No.3-KEA for admission to PG Medical Courses in all Private Medical Colleges in Karnataka for private quota seats, GMP seats and institutional seats on the basis of his merit and ranking and as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in Anushka Rengunthwar ( supra ).

¶39

2.2 In the third part of the prayer, the petitioner wanted declaration that by virtue of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anushka Rengunthwar ( supra ) , he is eligible and entitled to participate in the seat selection, allotment of seats and

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:39232-DB WP No. 25051 of 2024

¶42

counselling process to be conducted by respondent No.3-KEA, to choose the seat and to secure admission to all categories of seats. The petitioner further prayed for damages.

¶43

Noticing the relevant facts, the petitioner is an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) Cardholder registered with such status under Section 7A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, originally registered on 06.11.2015 and registered afresh on 22.12.2022. Producing the copy of the OCI Certificate of Registration, it is stated by the petitioner that he studied in Bengaluru from 1^st standard and passed his 10^th and 12^th standard examinations from Karnataka. The petitioner thereafter completed his MBBS degree from Bangalore Medical College and Research Institute, Bengaluru, having secured the seat on merit under All India Quota in NEET UG 2017.

¶44

3.1 It is the further case of the petitioner that he appeared for NEET-PG 2024 entrance test conducted by the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences on 11.08.2024. The results were declared on 23.08.2024. The petitioner passed out the said examination and stood eligible and qualified for admission to

¶45

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:39232-DB WP No. 25051 of 2024

¶46

Medical PG courses commencing in the year 2024. The petitioner aspires to undergo PG course in the discipline of Medicine.

¶47

3.2 It is stated that the Government of India, through the Ministry of Home Affairs, issued the Notification dated 11.04.2005 and another Notification dated 05.01.2009 under Section 7B(1) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 conferring certain rights on OCI Cardholders. Subsequently, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued one more Notification dated 04.03.2021 under the Citizenship Act in supersession of the earlier notifications. The petitioner is entitled under Clause (4)(ii) of the Notification dated 04.03.2021 which gives eligibility to OCI Cardholders for admission only against Non-Resident Indian seats. Proviso to Clause 4(ii) states that “Provided that the OCI Cardholder shall not be eligible for admission against any seat reserved exclusively for Indian citizens”.

¶48

3.3 Relying on the decision in Anushka Rengunthwar ( supra ) ,

¶49

in which the Apex Court had an occasion to deal with the operational scope and applicability of the Notification dated 04.03.2021, it is stated by the petitioner that by virtue of the said judgment, OCI/PIO Cardholders registered and born before the

¶50

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:39232-DB WP No. 25051 of 2024

¶51

issuance of the said notification have been treated as entitled at par with Indian citizens in the matter of admission to Medical Courses. It was the case that even prior to the aforementioned Notification dated 04.03.2021 which came to be dealt with for its applicability by the Apex Court as above, the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.27761 of 2019 and connected petitions held, by its judgment dated 09.12.2020, that OCI Cardholders are entitled to be treated at par with Indian citizens in terms of availment of educational rights.

¶52

Having put forth his case as above, the grievance sought to be raised by the petitioner is that though in the capacity of OCI Cardholder, the petitioner is entitled to the benefits available to OCI Cardholders under the Notification dated 04.03.2021 as interpreted and applied by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anushka Rengunthwar ( supra ), the respondents–the State of Karnataka and KEA have been denying admission to OCI Cardholders in PG courses in the Government and Private Medical Colleges in the State of Karnataka.

¶53

4.1 With reference to the aforesaid decision, it was contended and submitted that, “the said declaration of law by the Division

¶54

¶55

NC: 2024:KHC:39232-DB WP No. 25051 of 2024

¶56

Bench of this Hon’ble Court is equally applicable to PG Medical Courses. However, for the present academic year 2024-25, though the Central Government and MCC have allowed OCI Cardholders to participate in the counselling and admission process for all PG Medical Courses under 50% AIQ, PG Medical Courses in AIIMS and other Central Government Medical Institutes/Colleges and Deemed Universities in the Country in view of the law now laid down by the Apex Court in Writ Petition (C) No.891 of 2021 dated 03.02.2023 (Anushka Rengunthwar and others Vs. Union of India and others), the State Government and KEA will not be considering OCI Cardholders for admissions to PG Medical Courses under Government quota seats and in the Institutional seats category. The petitioner has enquired with KEA officials and has been orally informed that OCI Cardholders will not be eligible for admission to Government and Private PG Medical seats in the State of Karnataka since they are not Indian Citizens, despite the law laid down by the Apex Court in Writ Petition (C) No.891 of 2021 dated 03.02.2023 (Anushka Rengunthwar and others Vs. Union of India and others.”

¶57

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:39232-DB WP No. 25051 of 2024

¶58

As such, the grievance of the petitioner that in the PG medical courses, the petitioner-OCI Cardholder will not be treated at par with the Indian citizens to be accorded the rights in the field of admission in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anushka Rengunthwar ( supra ), is not well conceived.

¶59

5.1 Figures on record, produced by the petitioner himself, the copy of the Information Bulletin relating to NEET-PG 2024 which mentions the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test-PG and deals with admission to MD/MS/PG Diploma Courses 2024-25 session. Furthermore, Clause 11 of the Information Bulletin deals with Counselling and Reservation. Clause 11.1 says that reservation of PG Medical seats shall be as per the norms of the Government of India and respective State Governments as may be applicable.

¶60

5.2 In Clause 11.2, there is a specific reference to the decision of Anushka Rengunthwar ( supra ). Clause 11.2 reads thus,

¶61

“...Keeping in view the directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in order dated 03.02.2023 passed in WP (Civil) 891 of 2021 in the matter of ‘Anushka Rengunthwar & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors., the OCI cardholders will now be eligible to the rights which were provided to them earlier to the impugned notification dated

¶62

11 -

¶63

NC: 2024:KHC:39232-DB WP No. 25051 of 2024

¶64

04.03.2021. They will be treated at par with Indian citizens and will be eligible for UR (General) category seats as well as NRI seats for the purpose of counseling conducted by MCC.”

¶65

5.3 The respondents-the State of Karnataka and KEA have no quarrel with the applicability of the aforesaid Bulletin and the contemplations therein. Learned advocate for respondent No.3KEA as well as learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for respondent No.4-the Union of India fairly stated that the respondents would treat the petitioner-OCI Cardholder in accordance with the law laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anushka Rengunthwar ( supra ).

¶66

In fact, the issue cannot be said to be res integra any longer in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pallavi Vs. Union of India and Others (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1089) , which was Writ Petition (Civil) No. 642 of 2023 decided on 01.09.2023. The petitioner before the Supreme Court was a US national and OCI Cardholder. She had to approach the Supreme Court by filing petition under Article 32 of the Constitution in view of rejection of her candidature to Post Graduate medical seat. The petitioner was allowed to appear in the written examination and the results were

¶67

12 -

¶68

NC: 2024:KHC:39232-DB WP No. 25051 of 2024

¶69

declared for the NEET (PG) and the INI-CET/2023. However, the respondent thereafter rejected her application.

¶70

6.1 On 15.06.2023, the result of online mock round was announced and the said petitioner was allotted ‘Pediatrics’ discipline in All India Institute of Medical Sciences. However, suddenly on 19.06.2023, she was informed that she would no longer be treated as OCI candidate, but would be considered in the category of ‘Indian National’.

¶71

6.2 It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the basis for change of stand on the part of the admission authorities was the Notification dated 04.03.2021 of the Ministry of Home Affairs under the head ‘Parity with Non-Resident Indians in the matter of admission to NEET’ which indicated an exception that OCI Cardholders are ineligible for admissions to seats exclusively reserved for Indian citizens.

¶72

6.3 The decision in Anushka Rengunthwar ( supra ) was relied on by the petitioner to submit that the Notification dated 04.03.2021 was subject matter in the said decision and was interpreted for its application and for the bounds of rights to be availed to the OCI Cardholders.

¶73

13 -

¶74

NC: 2024:KHC:39232-DB WP No. 25051 of 2024

¶75

6.4 The petitioner in Pallavi ( supra ) was pursuing Post Graduate medical course. While allowing the petition, the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated thus,

¶76

“In the present case, although the OCI Card relied upon by the petitioner on 04.08.2022, the fact that she was in fact issued the OCI registration card first, on 02.11.2015. In such circumstances, the petitioner’s eligibility to claim the benefit of OCI card holder in terms of the ruling in Anushka (supra) is undeniable. The rejection of her candidature at this stage, i.e. on 19.06.2023 is not supportable in law. She is consequently directed to be considered in remaining counselling rounds by the AIIMS and all participating institutions for PG Medical seats. It is clarified that the consideration would be regarding seats that are unfilled on the date of this judgment whether reserved for SC/ST/OBC or other categories and such as specially earmarked for Bhutanese candidates etc. if they can be filled by other candidates, like her. Furthermore, this facility should be open to the petitioner as well as other candidates based upon the available records of those issued OCI cards prior to 04.03.2021 and who can participate in such counselling having regard to their performance in the NEET test, and their ranking.”

¶77

(para 18)

¶78

For all the aforesaid reasons and discussions, the petition deserves to be allowed.

¶79

It is, therefore, directed that respondent Nos.1 to 3 shall permit the petitioner to participate in the online counselling to be

¶80

14 - NC: 2024:KHC:39232-DB WP No. 25051 of 2024

¶81

conducted by respondent No.3 for admission to PG Medical Degree and Diploma Courses for all categories of seatsGovernment seats in Government and Private Medical Colleges and Private seats, GMP seats, Institutional seats in Private Medical Colleges, in accordance with the law laid down by the Apex Court

¶82

in Anushka Rengunthwar ( supra ) and as per the provisions of the Karnataka Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Determination of Fee) Act, 2006, on the basis of his merit and ranking in PG-NEET 2024.

¶83

The petitioner shall be treated as eligible and entitled to participate in the seat selection, allotment of seats and such counselling process to be conducted by respondent No.3-KEA.

¶84

The petition is allowed in part accordingly.

¶85

Sd/(N.V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶86

Sd/(K V ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶87

BKV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3

Pranav Shastry v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pranav Shastry 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

Umapathi S Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.C.Thimmarayappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri a Vijay Kumar Bhandary Vs Smt Kavitha S Mannikeri

Sri Dharshan P Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Nyamagoudar Y L Vs State of Karnataka

Ravinnandana M K Vs the National Medical Commission