Shristi Pandey Vs the State of Karnataka

SHRISTI PANDEY D/O. MITHU PANDEY AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.1, DHAPA ROAD KOLKATA-700 105 PRESENTLY RESIDING AT SIDDANA LAYOUT, BSK 2ND STAGE BENGALURU-560 070.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI Y.R. SADASHIVA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL, FOR SRI RAHUL S. REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION MULTISTORIED BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001.

¶17

THE NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION (UNDER GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION BOARD) REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR POCKET-14, SECTOR-8, DWARKA PHASE-1 NEW DELHI-110 077.

¶18

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

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:34730-DB WP No. 14962 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

KEMPEGOWDA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES BY ITS PRINCIPAL BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU-560 070.

¶22

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION CYBER CRIME INVESTIGATION DIVISION ECONOMIC OFFENCES-III NEW DELHI-110 003 REPRESENTED BY SPP.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R-1; SRI N. KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; SRI N.K. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-3; SRI C.N. KESHAVAMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R-4;

¶25

SRI P. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-5)

¶26

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227

¶28

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE LETTER DATED 23-4-2025 IN NO.ED/KEA/ADMN/CR-03/2025 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT KEA VIDE ANNEXURE C AND ETC.

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶31

and

¶32

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶33

3 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:34730-DB WP No. 14962 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

ORAL ORDER

¶37

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶38

Heard Sri Y.R. Sadashiva Reddy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Rahul S. Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sudev Hegde, Addl. Government Advocate for respondent No.1-State, Sri N. Khetty, learned counsel for respondent No.2-The National Medical Commission, Sri N.K. Ramesh, learned counsel for respondent No.3-The Karnataka Examinations Authority, Sri C.N. Keshavamurthy, learned counsel for respondent No.4-Kempegowda Institute of Medical Sciences and Sri P. Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.5-Central Bureau of Investigation.

¶39

The petitioner has secured admission in Kempagowda Institute of Medical Sciences, Bengaluru on the basis of result of NEET UG-2024 and going through the process of counseling conducted by respondent No.3-Karnataka Examination Authority(for short 'KEA'). While the petitioner was pursuing her studies in the said institution, a communication dated 21.04.2025 was sent by respondent No.2-The National Medical Commission( for short 'NMC') to the KEA stating that petitioner Miss Shristi Pandey, MBBS student had been found involved in malpractices in NEET UG-2024, as reported by Central Bureau

¶40

4 -

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:34730-DB WP No. 14962 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

of Investigation(CBI), which has been entrusted with the responsibility of investigating the paper leakage cases of NEET UG-2024 and therefore, the candidate should be discharged and her admission to be cancelled from the college and the action should be intimated to NMC in three days. After receipt of the aforesaid communication dated 21.04.2025 from National Medical Commission, the KEA vide letter dated 23.04.2025 wrote to the Kempegowda Institute of Medical Sciences, Bengaluru, asking the college to cancel petitioner's admission as per the communication dated 21.04.2025 issued by NMC.

¶44

In compliance of the aforesaid communication issued by NMC and KEA, the respondent No.4 college by discharge order dated 28.04.2025 cancelled the admission of the petitioner and discharged her from the institution with immediate effect. This order is under challenge before this Court.

¶45

From the communication issued by NMC, which is the basis for passing the discharge order dated 28.04.2025 by the respondent No.4 college, the only ground taken is petitioner's alleged involvement in malpractises reported in the CBI investigation in NEET UG-2024. We therefore, asked the

¶46

5 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:34730-DB WP No. 14962 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

learned counsel representing CBI-respondent No.5 to make its stand clear whether the petitioner is an accused in RC.6/E/2024/EO-III/Delhi. A memo has been filed by the learned counsel Sri. P. Prasanna Kumar, appearing for CBI, wherein it has been stated that in the above case, the petitioner is not arrayed as an accused, but cited as prosecution witness No.185(PW-185).

¶50

As the very basis of communication issued by NMC, in pursuance to which, discharge order dated 28.04.2025 has been issued by respondent No.4 college, is not present i.e., the petitioner is not an accused in the case being investigated by CBI regarding malpractices committed by the persons in NEET UG-2024 examinations, we find that the impugned communications issued by NMC, KEA and discharge order have no legs to stand. Therefore, we allow this writ petition and quash the communication issued by respondent No.2-National Medical Commission dated 21.04.2025, communication dated 23.04.2025 issued by respondent No.3-The Karnataka Examinations Authority and discharge order dated 28.04.2025 issued by respondent No.4- Kempegowda Institute of Medical Sciences/college. The petitioner should be permitted to continue her studies and complete her course, subject to the

¶51

6 -

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:34730-DB WP No. 14962 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

investigation being conducted by CBI. We make it abundantly clear that if at any stage, the petitioner's involvement is found in the malpractices in NEET UG-2024, no equity will vest in her

¶55

for having studied for sometime in the respondent No.4

¶56

college.

¶57

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶58

Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

¶59

MN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

Shristi Pandey v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shristi Pandey v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Telecom Employees Co-Operative Vs the State of Karnataka

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs C. Akshatha

M/S Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Sameen Banu

G Bhaskar Prabhu Vs Karnataka Stae Khadi and Village Industris Board

Mukul Pravin Khamayacha Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. T. Narayana Swamy Vs State of Karnataka