ORDER
Abdul Nazeer, J.
1. The petitioner appearing for common entrance test conducted by the 2nd respondent for admission to MBBS Course for the academic year 2004-05. It is contended that she had secured a very high rank in the said test. The Counselling was conducted by the 2nd respondent on 14th July 2004 and Petitioner was allotted a seat in Sri Siddartha Medical College, Tumkur. It is her further case that she had paid the fee of Rs. 1,72,000/- as directed by the 2nd respondent on 14.7.2004 which is evidenced by the challan marked at Annexure 'A'. Later she was allotted a seat at 1st respondent - College on 13.9.2004 in the re-counselling. A copy of the admission order dated 13.9.2004 is produced at Annexure 'B' As per the said order of admission, Petitioner was directed to report to the Principal of the 1st respondent College on 28.09.2004. It is the case of the Petitioner that she went to the 1st respondent - College on 28.9.2004. On that day 1st respondent issued an acknowledgment as per Annexure 'C' wherein she was asked to wait for further instructions from the institutions regarding her admission. It is further contended that she has again approached the 1st respondent - college on 30th September 2004 in the morning and that she was asked to wait and she was assured that she would be permitted to join the course. In spite of her repeated pleadings she was refused by the 1st respondent - College to join the courses. Therefore, she has filed the Writ Petition for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to permit her to pursue MBBS Course in the 1st respondent - College for the academic year 2004-05 pursuant to and in accordance with the admission order dated 13.9.2004 issued by the 2nd respondent.
2. The 1st respondent has filed its objections. It is contended that CET cell had selected and allotted students from 11.09.2004 upto 27.09.2004 for regular and casual vacancy rounds and had indicated 28.9.2004 as the last date for admission in the allotment letters. Even though some of the students had reported to the 1st respondent - college soon after their selection and allotment, the 1st respondent had not admitted any students as the controversy about the quantum of fees payable by the students continued. As and when the students reported for admission they were given an endorsement acknowledging their reporting to the college and asking them to wait for settlement of the said dispute. Under these circumstances, when the Petitioner reported on 28.9.2004, she was given the endorsement as per Annexure 'C. It is further contended that students were indicated that admission would start at any point of time since the negotiations for settlement is at a very advanced stage. On 28.9.2004 at about 10 A.M. the Association through its Chairman held discussions and on assurance from the State Government a decision was taken to admit CET students in accordance with differential fee structure after taking an undertaking from them to make good the revised fee and that the news was announced in News Channels wherein students selected by CET to report the respective colleges and get admitted on 29.9.2004. It is further contended that this was given wide publicity all over the State and that majority of the students selected and allotted to most of the colleges including the 1st respondent - College reported and got themselves admitted. It is contended that on 30.9.2004 the 1st respondent was required to send the admission list at 12 noon to the Authorities like the Director of Medical Education and CET Cell. The college had completed the admission of 65 seats by 8 P.M. on 29.9.2004 and the remaining admissions were continued on 30.9.2004 till 12 noon. In view of the earlier communication, the 1st respondent - Management stopped admission on 12 noon of 30th September 2004 and was preparing to send the admission information to the DME and CET Cell. At that point of time, the Secretary of CET Cell instructed the 1st respondent College that the CET allottees be admitted till 5 P.M. on 30.9.2004. Accordingly, the college has made 4 admissions. It is further contended that out of 90 students sent by the CET Cell 89 were admitted by the college upto 5 P.M. on 30.9.2004. Since the Petitioner did not turn up on 30th September 2004 the 1st respondent College has admitted a student from the Corned 'K' wait list. In these circumstances, the college has justified its action in not admitting the Petitioner to the said college.
3.I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record.
4. Mr. P.S. Rajagopal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Petitioner was admitted as per the admission order at Annexure 'B' on 13.09.2004 and she was required to join the College on or before 28.09.2004. The College has acknowledged the reporting of the Petitioner on 28.09.2004. The College is not justified in refusing to permit the Petitioner to join the course since she was already admitted. He has relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of PURNIMA SHARMA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS., 2002(2) KAR.LJ. 279 for the proposition that once the Petitioner is selected by the CET cell and she has paid the requisite fees it is deemed that the Petitioner is admitted to the 1st respondent - College. Petitioner has reported to the college which is evident from Annexure 'C'. The college is not justified in not allowing the Petitioner to prosecute her studies. He has also relied on a decision of this Court in the case of NAGARAJAPPA G. AND ORS. v. CENTRALIZED ADMISSION CELL REP. BY ITS SPECIAL OFFICER AND ORS., : ILR2003KAR1912 .
5. Sri A.N. Venugopala Gowda, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 while supporting the Petitioner contends that the college is bound to permit the petitioner to pursue her studies in MBBS Course. He has drawn my attention to the various Rules of the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Professional Institutions Rules, 2004 and submits that once the Petitioner is admitted by the CET cell, the 1st respondent college has no authority to refuse permission to pursue her studies in the college.
6. Sri B. Manohar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the 3rd respondent and Sri N.K. Ramesh, Learned Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent have also made similar submissions.
7. On the other hand, Sri Madhusudan R. Naik, Learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submits that the admission order issued by the CET Cell does not amount to admission of the Petitioner to the 1st respondent college. He has taken me through the statement of objections filed by the 1st respondent - college and submits that the Petitioner should be blamed for not attending the college on 30.9.2004. Since the college has already filled up the seat, the college is not in a position to permit the petitioner to pursue her studies.
8. I have carefully considered the arguments made at the bar.
9. In exercise of the power conferred under Section 14 of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984, the State Government has framed Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Professional Institutions Rules, 2004. The said Rules are applicable for Selection of the Candidates for Admission to various courses included MBBS and BDS Courses.
10. Sub-rule (a) of Rule 2 defines Admission Centre means a centre at which selection and allotment of candidates to various courses in Professional Institutions are made. Rule 8 of the said Rules provides for preparation and publication of merit list. Rule 11 provides for Publication of seat matrix and admission schedule. Rule 12 deals with Allotment of seats. Rule 15 deals with Exercising option for selection of Government seats and Management Seats referred to in sub-rule (3) of Rule 12. Clause (iv) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 states that the candidate while selecting a seat, shall deposit the notified fee, for the first year, first Semester at the CET Cell. Clause (v) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 15 states that the candidate shall produce the specified original documents for verification at the CET Cell. The CET Cell will retain copies of the documents and return the originals to the candidates with the admission order. It is as follows:
'(iv) The candidate while selecting a seat, shall deposit the notified fee, for the first year, first semester, through a crossed Demand Draft, Pay Order, drawn in favour of the 'The Special Officer, Common Entrance Test Cell, Bangalore', payable at Bangalore.
(v) The candidate shall produce the specified original documents along with photocopies thereof and the Special Officer may cause verification of the documents produced. The CET Cell shall retain copies of the documents and return the originals to the candidate along with the admission order. The candidate, upon obtaining the admission order from the CET Cell, shall report to the college concerned on or before the date specified in the admission order.'
11. Rule 17 deals holding of Re-conciliation Meeting which is as follows:
'17. Re-conciliation meeting - After the closing date for allotment of seats to the course by the CET Cell, re-conciliation meetings regarding the number of unfilled, un-allotted seats, shall be held at the CET Cell by the Directorate of Technical Education, Directorate of Medical Education, Directorate of Indian Systems of Medicine and Homeopathy, as the case may be, with the Special Officer, CET Cell and the Principal or Secretary of the Institutions. After identifying the vacant seats, if any Notification shall be issued by the concerned Director regarding the vacant seats. Such seats may thereafter be filled by the institutions, with in the date stipulated by the University concerned for admission to the course from the merit list of the CET conducted by the CET Cell or Association of Private Professional Colleges as the case may be.'
12. Rule 20 states that the Principal, Management of the Institution shall immediately allow all the candidates allotted by the Special Officer, to join the course of study. For ready reference Rule 20 is as follows:
20. General-(1) The Principal, Management of the concerned Institution, shall immediately allow all the candidates allotted by the Special Officer to join the course of study.
(2) In case of refusal by the institution to allow the candidate to join the course with the admission order issued by the Special Officer, the concerned University, to which the college is affiliated, shall enforce the admission order issued under these Rules, failing which, the concerned University shall take such action as it deems fit against the institution concerned by exercising the powers vested in it under Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000, (Karnataka Act 29 of 2001), Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1994 (Karnataka Act 44 of 1994) and the Vishveshwaraiah University of Technical Education Act, 1994 (Karnataka Act 39 of 1994), as the case may be.
(3) All admissions made to and by the colleges shall be subject to approval by the concerned University.
(4) Any refusal by the concerned University to approve the admission after such verification as deemed fit regarding the eligibility or otherwise of the candidate to the course, shall not be the responsibility of the Special Officer or the Government and no claims shall lie against the Special Officer or the Government.'
13. The various provisions particularly Clause (v) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 15 makes it clear that the candidate shall produce the specified original documents along with photocopies thereof to the CET Cell and the CET Cell shall after retaining the copies of the documents return the originals to the candidates along with admission order. The candidates upon obtaining the admission order from the CET Cell, shall report to the College concerned on or before the date specified in the admission order. As per Rule 17, Reconciliation Meeting to be held after closing date for allotment of seats to the courses by the CET Cell. After identifying the vacant seats, if any Notification has to be issued by the concerned Director regarding the vacant seat and such seats thereafter has to be filled up by the Institution within the dates stipulated by the University concerned for admission to the courses from the merit list of the CET or Association of Private Professional Colleges as the case may be. Rule 20 makes it clear that the Management of the concerned Institution shall immediately allow all the candidates allotted by the Special Officer, to join the course of study.
14. In the instant case, the Petitioner had paid the necessary fee and produced requisite documents at the CET Cell. The CET Cell has issued an Admission Order as per Annexure 'B' directing the Petitioner to report to the Principal of the 1st Respondent -College latest by 28.09.2004. The Petitioner has admittedly reported to the 1st respondent - College which in turn issued an endorsement as per Annexure 'C' When the Rules make it clear that the Principal and the Management of the concerned Institution shall immediately allow all the candidates allotted by the CET Cell to join the course of study, the 1st respondent is not justified in issuing an endorsement as per Annexure 'C' which is contrary to the Rules. By operation of Clause (v) of Sub-section (1) of Rule 15, the admissions are made by the CET Cell and the college has to only allow the Petitioner to join the course. The Petitioner was issued the Admission order and she has reported to the College on 28.9.2004 in accordance with the admission order at Annexure 'B'. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of PURNIMA SHARMA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. (supra) on identical situation has held as follows:
'10. In the present case, the Petitioner had paid the fee of Rs. 75,000/-. She had also produced all the requisite documents in original. Thereafter she was issued the admission order placed at Annexure 'a' on 19.11.2001. The said order clearly speaks that she had been admitted to the 4th respondent - College. Therefore, with the issuance of Annexure -A, the Petitioner got admitted to the 4th respondent - College and the next thing required to be done by her was to join the college.
11. From reading of the rules, it is clear that after a candidate is admitted by the Special Officer, (CET), to a professional college, the Principal or management of the college have not been given any discretion of not permitting the candidate to join the course in the college. This is amply clear from Rule 23(1) of the Rules, which reads thus: '23. General-(1) The management of any institution shall admit only the candidates nominated or allotted by the Special Officer to a course of study in the institution against 'free seats' or 'payment seats' as the case may be'.'
15. In the case of Nagarajappa G. and Ors. (Supra), this Court has held that the seats under Government quota has to be filled up on the basis of merit and in pursuance to the directions of the State Government. If the State Government for any reason is unable to fill up seats after repeated Counselling it may by an order in writing can permit the Management to fill up unfilled seats. A Private Managements right to fill up the unfilled seats under the Government quota arises only when they are permitted to do so by express Government order.
16. In the Instant case, no reconciliation meeting, was held as per Rule 17 and the College was not permitted to fill up any vacant seat. The College instead of allowing the Petitioner to join the course on 28.9.2004, has issued an endorsement - Annexure 'C' which is contrary to law. Even if the College has admitted a student in the place of the Petitioner it is for the University to take appropriate action in terms of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 20 of Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Professional Institutions Rules, 2004. It is made clear that the 4th respondent - University shall not permit the 1st respondent -College to admit students in excess of the permitted intake.
17. In the result, the Writ Petition succeeds and it is accordingly allowed. I direct the 1st respondent - College to permit the Petitioner to join the 1st Year MBBS Course for the academic year 2004-2005 forthwith and allow her to complete the course in accordance with law. No costs.