Dismissed¶92

Mr. Gadhave Rushikesh Dadabhau v. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

Karnataka HC27 Feb 2025WA/941/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

BAMS/Ayush UG admissions without KEA counselling; writ appeal against refusal of interim directions to pay examination fee and write exams; Atreya Ayurvedic Medical College; NCISM Regulations 16.02.2022 Regulation 5 Clauses 7, 9, 10; KEA Information Bulletin; Annexure-D permission order 07.12.2022; admissions through Central/State counselling mandatory; mandamus without subsisting legal right; private/centralized counseling; interim order permitting examination appearance without equity; results not to be published without Court permission; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ appeal is dismissed and pending interlocutory applications are disposed of. ¶92

Mr. Gadhave Rushikesh Dadabhau Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ appeal is dismissed and pending interlocutory applications are disposed of.

¶92

Issue for consideration

Whether the interim order dated 18.06.2024 of the learned Single Judge in WP No.14484/2023, refusing to permit appellants 1 to 10 (BAMS students admitted by the appellant-College otherwise than through KEA counselling) to pay the examination fee, take the examination and obtain publication of results, required interference in this writ appeal.

¶88

Court's answer

The learned Single Judge's refusal of the interim directions was justified: it was specifically notified to the Institution by the order granting approval, the brochure and the regulations in force that admission to State quota seats had to be made only through the counselling authority, i.e., the KEA; consequently no interference is called for with the impugned order.

¶88

Ratio / Principle

The Annexure-D order of permission dated 07.12.2022 specifically required that counselling for seats be conducted by the respective counselling authority (Central Government authority for 15% of seats, State Government designated authority for 85%), and that admissions made in violation of the conditions would be treated as invalid with action initiated against the Institution.

¶83

Key takeaways

Permission to conduct admission was granted on 07.12.2022 while the admission procedure was ongoing, but the last date for admissions was 4th March, 2022, leaving the Institution ample time to have made the admissions through the KEA.ratio¶84
Many seats had been filled up through the KEA, and cancellation was effected only in respect of the seats which were filled up without recourse to the counselling authority.ratio¶84
The e-information brochure of the KEA specifically required admissions to Ayush courses to be made by allotment through KEA, and the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Minimum Standard of Undergraduate Education and Regulation, 2022 (admittedly in force at the time of the relevant admissions) required that no Institute admit any candidate in contravention of the prescribed criteria/procedure and that all admissions be made through the Central or State counselling authorities concerned.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (WA No. 941 of 2024, EDN-RES) under S. 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act by ten first-year BAMS students of the 11th appellant, Atreya Ayurvedic Medical Hospital and Research Centre, and by the College itself, challenging the interim order dated 18.06.2024 of the learned Single Judge in WP No. 14484/2023 refusing interim directions (stay of Annexure-K; permission to take internal assessment/university examinations and publish results). The students had been admitted by the College otherwise than through counselling by the Karnataka Examination Authority (KEA), though all had registered with KEA and possessed NEET eligibility; an interim order dated 11.07.2024 in the appeal had permitted them to sit the examinations without creating any right or equity and had frozen publication of results. The Court held that the permission order dated 07.12.2022 (Annexure-D), the KEA information brochure and the NCISM Minimum Standard of Undergraduate Education and Regulation, 2022 (Regulation 5, Clauses 7, 9 and 10) expressly mandated that all State-quota admissions be made only through the counselling authority (KEA) and that admissions in contravention would be cancelled; the Institution had ample time till 04.03.2022 to admit through KEA, and cancellations affected only seats filled outside counselling. Refusal of the interim directions was therefore justified and no interference was warranted. Precedents urged by counsel (Shamsher Singh; In Re Presidential Poll; Engineering Analysis Centre; Manisubrat Jain; Abdul Ahad) were not independently analysed. Appeal dismissed; pending IAs disposed of.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:8578-DB WA No. 941 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶9

WRIT APPEAL NO. 941 OF 2024 (EDN-RES)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

MR. GADHAVE RUSHIKESH DADABHAU AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS S/O SRI. DADABHAU BHAGUJI GADHAVE STUDENT OF I YEAR BAMS

¶12

MS. GAIKWAD PRATIKSHA SATISH AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS D/O SRI. SATISH NAMDEV GAIKWAD STUDENT OF I YEAR BAMS

¶13

Digitally signed by CHANNEGOWDA PREMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

MR. MEHDI HASAN AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS S/O SRI. MAKBUL HUSSAIN STUDENT OF I YEAR BAMS

¶15

MS. MEHNAZ SHAMIM AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS D/O SRI. MUSHRROF HUSSAIN FORAZI STUDENT OF I YEAR BAMS

¶16

MS. NABA MARIAM AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS D/O SRI. LIYAKATH ALI STUDENT OF I YEAR BAMS

¶17

MS. PRASAD SHIKHA DARASINGH AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS D/O SRI. DARASINGH

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:8578-DB WA No. 941 of 2024

¶20

STUDENT OF I YEAR BAMS

¶21

MS. RANI KUMARI AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS D/O SRI. DUDHNATH PANDIT STUDENT OF I YEAR BAMS

¶22

MR. SOUTUL HAQUE AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS D/O SRI. ANUARUL HOQUE STUDENT OF I YEAR BAMS

¶23

MR. TEJAS VIRENDRA MODI AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS S/O SRI. VIRENDRA MODI STUDENT OF I YEAR BAMS

¶24

MS. VISHAKHA BHAMARE AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS D/O SRI. NAMDEV BHAMARE STUDENT OF I YEAR BAMS

¶25

APPELLANTS No.1 TO 10 ARE STUDENTS OF M/S. ATREYA AYURVEDIC MEDICAL, HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE KAKKALLI ROAD, KODIGEHALLI DODDABALLAPUR TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT BENGALURU-561 203

¶26

M/S. ATREYA AYURVEDIC MEDICAL HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE KAKKALLI ROAD, KODIGEHALLI DODDABALLAPUR TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203 BY ITS PRINCIPAL

¶27

…APPELLANTS

¶28

(BY SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KRISHNAN C.V., ADVOCATE)

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8578-DB WA No. 941 of 2024

¶30

AND:

¶31

RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES 4^TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 041 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR

¶32

KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY SAMPIGE ROAD, 18^TH CROSS MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU-560 012 REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

¶33

NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR INDIAN SYSTEM OF MEDICINE ROAD No.66, BLOCK-4 DHANWANTRI BHAVAN PUNJABI BAGH NEW DELHI-110 026 REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY

¶34

…RESPONDENTS

¶35

(BY SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. N.K. RAMEH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SMT. MANASI KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶36

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO (a). SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.06.2024, PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE ON I. A. 1/2024 IN WP No. 14484/2023 (EDN-RES) CONSEQUENTLY AND ETC.

¶37

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

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8578-DB WA No. 941 of 2024

¶39

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶40

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶41

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

¶42

This appeal is filed challenging an interim order dated 18.06.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No.14484/2023. The writ petition was filed before the learned Single Judge raising the following substantial prayers:

¶43

(a). Set aside the order dated 18.06.2024, passed by the learned single judge on I. A. 1/2024 in WP No.14484/2023 (Edn-Res) consequently.

¶44

(b). Allow I. A. No. 1/2024 filed in WP No.14484/2023 (Edn-Res) directing the first respondent to receive the examination fee and permit the appellants 1 to 10 to write the examination scheduled from 15.07.2024 and declare the results thereof.

¶45

It is submitted that while the writ petition was

¶46

pending, an interim prayer was sought for by the writ petitioners seeking an ad-interim stay of Annexure-K and a further direction to the respondents to permit petitioners No.1 to 10 to take up the internal assessment examinations scheduled during the last week of July, 2023. The learned Single Judge had found that though the names of petitioners

¶47

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8578-DB WA No. 941 of 2024

¶48

No.1 to 10 are said to have been uploaded in the website of the University, the admissions were not made based upon the counselling by the KEA. On consideration of the orders passed by the Co-ordinate Benches in other writ petitions, it was found that the said orders did not make reference to the NCISM Regulations which had come into force on 16.02.2022. It was accordingly found that the interim directions as sought for cannot be granted in the light of the stipulations in the KEA Information Bulletin and the Regulations issued by the NCISM on 16.02.2022.

¶49

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the appellants had been permitted to take the examinations by an interim order dated 11.07.2024 passed by this Court in this appeal with a clarification that their appearance for the examinations shall not create any right or equity in their favour. It is further ordered that the results of the examinations shall not be published without permission of the Court.

¶50

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the appellants had been admitted by the 11^th

¶51

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8578-DB WA No. 941 of 2024

¶52

appellant- College and all of them had actually registered with the KEA and that they had necessary eligibility for admission to the 11^th appellant- College. It is contended that since they have already been admitted and been permitted to take examination as well, the results of the examination are liable to be published and that they should be permitted to complete their course.

¶53

It is contended that there are several orders issued by this Court in other matters as well and reliance is placed on the judgment of the Co-equal Bench of this Court in WP No.1565/2023 to contend that though the Institute was imposed with cost of Rs.5,00,000/- for conduct of admissions to post graduate medical course with recourse to the KEA, the students were permitted to take the examinations and complete their studies.

¶54

Learned counsel would also place reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in State of Rajastan and Another v. Shamsher Singh reported in 1985 (SUPP) SCC 416, IN RE PRESIDENTIAL POLL reported in (1974) 2 SCC 33, and ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED V. COMMISSIONER OF

¶55

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8578-DB WA No. 941 of 2024

¶56

INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER reported in (2022) 3 SCC 321 .

¶57

The contention is to the effect that the permission to conduct admissions had been granted to the college only on 07.12.2022

¶58

and the college could not complete the admissions to all the seats, for which, permission had been granted by recourse through the KEA within the short time, which was granted for completing the admissions. It is submitted that it was in the above circumstances that some of the admissions had to be made by the college after the list which was forwarded by the KEA was exhausted. It is further contended that all the students who had been admitted by the 11^th appellantInstitution were persons, who had registered with the KEA and had acquired NEET eligibility as well.

¶59

The learned counsel appearing for the University as well as the NCISM would, on the other hand, contend that the admission brochure issued by the KEA as well as the order of permission granted to the 11^th respondent-Institution specifically provided that the admissions have to be made through KEA alone.

¶60

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8578-DB WA No. 941 of 2024

¶61

Learned counsel for the NCISM would draw our

¶62

attention to the specific provision in the KEA e-Information Bulletin with regard to AYUSH courses and states that a letter dated 13.10.2022 of the Karnataka Ayush Department is referred to and it is stated that as per the said direction, seats available for the UG courses in private Ayush colleges of Karnataka State as well as the Management Quota seats shall be allotted through KEA and UG-NEET 2022 eligible candidates can also register online for Ayush seats.

¶63

Learned counsel for the NCISM would also draw our

¶64

attention to the NCISM Regulations dated 16.02.2022 with specific reference to Clauses 7, 9 and 10 of Regulation 5. The said provision reads as follows:

¶65

(7) (i) All seats irrespective of category (Central quota, State Quota or management etc.) except foreign nationals are to be admitted through counselling (Central, State or UT) only. Direct admission by any means other than above specified shall not be approved.

¶66

(ii) The institutions shall have to submit the list of students admitted in the format specified by NCISM on or before 6 pm on the cut off date for admissions specified by NCISM time to time for verification.

¶67

(iii) Universities shall approve the admission of those candidates (except foreign nationals) who have been

¶68

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:8578-DB WA No. 941 of 2024

¶69

allotted through counselling (Central, State or UT as the case may be)

¶70

(9) No authority or institution shall admit any candidate to the under-graduate programme in contravention of the criteria or procedure laid down in these regulations in respect of admission and any admission made in contravention of the said criteria or procedure shall be cancelled by the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine forthwith.

¶71

(10) The authority or institution which grants admission to any student in contravention of the criteria or procedure laid down in these regulations shall be liable accordingly, under the relevant provisions of the Act.

¶72

It is further contended that the comprehensive guidelines for counseling and admission in undergraduate and post-graduate courses of Ayurvedha, Siddha, Unani and Homeopathy issued for the academic session 2022-2023 also specify that admissions are to be made through counseling by the State/UT counseling authorities alone and that no Institution shall admit any candidate to the undergraduate/post graduate courses in contravention of the criteria or procedure in respect of admissions and that any such admissions made in contravention shall be cancelled by the NCISM.

¶73

It is submitted that the NCISM was not made as a party either in the writ petition or in the appeal and that the

¶74

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:8578-DB WA No. 941 of 2024

¶75

earlier interim orders had been passed in the writ appeal also before the NCISM came on record and made available the relevant documents before this Court. Reliance is also placed on the communications issued by the NCISM in 2024 in support of their contentions.

¶76

Learned counsel would also place reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Manisubrat Jain & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors.¹ in support of the contention that without a subsisting legal right, writ of mandamus as sought for cannot be issued.

¶77

Further, the decision of the Apex Court in Abdul Ahad Vs. Union of India & Ors.² is also relied on to contend that where private medical colleges have resorted to private counseling instead of centralized counseling by the counseling authorities, no orders can be passed by the Constitutional Courts in favour of the candidates so admitted.

¶78

We have considered the contentions advanced on either side.

¶79

1 (1997) 1 SCC 486

¶80

2 (2021) SCC OnLine SC 627

¶81

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:8578-DB WA No. 941 of 2024

¶82

It is apparent that the permission to conduct

¶83

admission for the academic year 2020-2022 had been granted to the Institution on 07.12.2022, that is, while the admission procedure was on going. However, Annexure-D order of permission dated 07.12.2022 specifically provides that counselling for seats shall be conducted by respective counselling authority that is as designated by the Central Government in respect of 15% of the seats and the designated counselling authority of the State Government in respect of 85% of the seats. It is further stated that admissions made in violation of the conditions will be treated as invalid and action will be initiated against the Institution.

¶84

Further, it is stated that the last date for admissions was 4^th March, 2022 and there was ample time for the Institute to have made the admissions through the KEA. It is stated that many of the seats had been filled up through the KEA and it is only in respect of the seats which were filled up without recourse to the counselling authority that the cancellation was effected.

¶85

12 -

¶86

NC: 2025:KHC:8578-DB WA No. 941 of 2024

¶87

Further, we notice that the e-information brochure of the KEA had also specifically stated that admissions to Ayush Courses should be made by allotment through KEA. The National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Minimum Standard of Undergraduate Education and Regulation, 2022, which were admittedly in force at the time of the relevant admissions, also specify that no Institute should admit any candidate in contravention of the criteria or procedure laid down and that all admissions are to be made through the Central or State counseling authorities concerned.

¶88

Having considered the contentions advanced in the said factual matrix, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the learned Single Judge refusing the interim directions as sought for cannot be said to require any interference in the writ appeal. We are of the opinion in view of the fact that it was specifically notified to the Institution by the order granting approval as well as the brochure and the regulations in force that admission has to be made to the state quota seats only through the counseling authority i.e., the KEA, the refusal of the Interim Order was justified. We are therefore of the opinion that no interference is called for in the order of the

¶89