Judgment:
ORDER
A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.
1. The first petitioner-college and its students, petitioners 2 to 10, have filed these petitions praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Annexure-F, dated 5-5-2001, issued by the first respondent insofar as it relates to refusing approval of the candidates mentioned at S1. Nos. 19 to 28.
2. The first petitioner-college imparts education leading to B.Ed. degree at K.G.F., Kolar District from the year 1974. The college is affiliated to the Bangalore University. After coming into force of the National Council of Teacher Education Act, 1993 (for short 'NCTEA'), the first petitioner-college was recognised by the N.C.T.E. The affiliation was granted by the Bangalore University by its letter dated 26-12-2000. Subsequently, the Government of Karnataka continued the affiliation as sanctioned by the University under Section 53(9) of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 and determined the intake of students for the first petitioner-college as 37 for the year 2000-01 by its order dated 10-1-2001. Out of the said 37 seats 19 seats were Government seats which had to be filled up by the centralised admission cell and remaining 18 had to be filled up by the management. The Government sent up only 8 students out of the 19 seats to be filled up by centralised admission cell. The first petitioner-college waited till the last date fixed for admission and on 6-2-2001 filled up 9 seats out of the 11 Government seats still remaining unfilled. After admission and scrutinisation of the papers submitted by the students the college sent the list of admitted students to the first respondent for approval. The first respondent by its letter dated 5-5-2001 refused to grant approval to the 9 students who were admitted to the course on 6-2-2001 on the ground that the college had not obtained prior permission from the Government for filling up of unfilled Government seats as stipulated in Rule 7, Clause (8) of the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to T.C.H. and B.Ed. Rules, 1999 ('the Rules' for short). Aggrieved by the refusal of the first respondent to grant approval to the 9 students, the college and the students have preferred these petitions.
3. The respondents have filed two objection statements taking a common ground that the admissions made in excess of the management quota was in contravention of Rule 7(8) of the Rules and, therefore, the rejection by the first respondent of those admissions is in conformity with the rule and, therefore, no interference is called for in these petitions.
4.I have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.
5. In the light of the rival contentions, the only question that arises for my consideration in the facts and circumstances of the case is, whether the admission of the petitioners 2 to 10 by the first petitioner-college could be regularised and the direction as sought for by the petitioners could be given to the respondents to approve their admission.
6. Before I proceed to decide the issue in question it would be useful to refer to Rule 7, Clause (8) of the said Rules, which reads:
'(8) For the seats remaining vacant even after reallotment and counselling, further counselling shall be done by selecting the candidates from out of the waiting list by reducing the cut-off percentage under the category in which vacancies exist. This process shall be continued till all the vacant seats are filled up in all the categories under Government seats. Seats still remaining vacant even after the last date fixed by the Government for counselling, shall be filled up by management in accordance with Rule 9'.
Rule 9 lays down the manner in which the unfilled seats have to be filled up. It reads:
'Selection for other seats.--The respective institutions shall call for applications from the eligible candidates for admission to TCH and B.Ed. courses in their institutions in respect of other seats and fill up such seats in accordance with the eligibility criteria as envisaged in these rules and merit list of selected candidates shall be got approved by the principals of the DIETs of the concerned district and in respect of B.Ed. candidates the list shall be got approved by the University concerned'.
7. Two vital aspects emerge from the factual matrix of the case. Firstly, that the Government failed to fill up the full quota of seats in the respondent-college even after the expiry of the prescribed date and secondly, that the college had not adhered to the rules cited supra before filling up the remaining unfilled Government seats. The only conclusion that could be drawn from the failure of the Government to send up to the college its full quota of students is that there were no candidates available under the Government quota to fill up the remaining seats. In such a situation if a college fills up the remaining seats by admitting students of its own choice, who satisfy the eligibility criteria, even in a manner contrary to the said rule, whether such admissions could be regularised is the question to be determined in these petitions.
8. The Apex Court had occasion to consider this question in Unni Krishnan, J.P. and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., : [1993]1SCR594 , while laying down a scheme, in the following terms in para 210 of that judgment:
'(9) After making the allotments, the Competent Authority shall also prepare and publish a waiting list of the candidates along with the marks obtained by them in the relevanttest/examination. The said list shall be followed for filling up any casual vacancies or 'drop-out' vacancies arising after the admissions are finalised. These vacancies shall be filled until such date as may be prescribed by the Competent Authority. Any vacancies still remaining after such date can be filled by the management'.
(emphasis supplied)
The said scheme in Unni Krishnan's case, supra, was relied on by the Apex Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Himachal Institute of Engineering and Technology, Simla, : (1998)8SCC501 , wherein also a similar question had come up for consideration. In the case of Himachal Institute of Engineering and Technology's case, supra, also many seats remained unfilled because the students sponsored by the Government were not willing to take up the payment seats, presumably because they could not afford it. Taking in view the fact that such seats remained vacant, even after the cut-off date, the Apex Court resolved the situation, by giving the Government the Hobson's choice of either compensating the college for the unfilled seats or regularising the admissions made by the college. The Government wisely opted for regularizing the admissions made by the college on its own against the Government quota. In making the direction, the Apex Court was prompted by the undisputed position that otherwise the college would have to run huge losses or close down the institute for want of students.
9. In my view the principles laid down by these two decisions squarely apply and have complete bearing on the facts and circumstances obtaining in these petitions. As the academic year has come to close and the students have completed the course of study, it would be appropriate to direct the authorities to approve the admissions made by the petitioner-college subject to the students satisfying the eligibility criteria. It is also made clear that the first petitioner-college would not be required to offset the extra intake by surrendering the equal number of seats to the Government in the next academic year as contended by the learned Counsel for the respondents in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. But, the first petitioner-college shall not treat this decision as a precedent in making future admissions to the course and shall strictly abide by the said rules in case of non-filling of seats by the Government even after the cut-off date.
10. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed by issuing a writ of certiorari quashing Annexure-F, dated 5-5-2001 issued by the first respondent insofar as it relates to refusal of approval of the candidates mentioned at SI. Nos. 19 to 28. Further, the writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondents to approve the admission of the petitioners 2 to 10 whose names are mentioned at S1. Nos. 19 to 28 in Annexure-F, dated 5-5-2001 and consequently declare their results if the petitioners had taken up the examination and permit them to complete their course.