SUJA T ZACHARIA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) joined the bachelor of dental surgery (b.d.s.) course and whose admissions have not been approved of by the university on the ground that the respondent-college was permitted in the academic year 1992-93 to admit only 40 students as against which they have admitted 49.

(2.) the university authorities therefore refused to approve the a dmissions of the remaining 9 students on the ground that the college has exceeded the permissible intake. The petitioners have thereupon approached this court because in effect the refusal to approve the admissions would have the result of cancellation of their admissions and having regard to the fact that they have already paid the fees and joined the course, they contended that they should not be penalised for whatever errors or breaches the college management might have committed. There is also an interesting additional aspect to this case which demonstrates an entirely different facet to the problem. Petitioners' learned Advocate has contended that the college submitted a list of 49 students to the university for approval and that the list had set down the names of the students in the alphabetical order. Consequently, the students at serial nos. 1 to 40 were approved of and the subsequent 9 were refused approval and the learned Advocate submits that the fundamental error that arose was that if one were to synchronize the sequence of admissions made by the college then it would be found that the students at serial nos. 40 to 49 who are the petitioners in these group of petitions are not the last 9 students to have been admitted. His argument proceeded on the footing that if the solitary ground for refusal of recognition of the admission is that the intake has been exceeded, that the fault lies in respect of admissions in excess of 40 students and that therefore, it is the last 9 admissions which would have to go and not the students who are at present disqualified who are infact higher in the Order of sequence. This is the factual aspect of the matter, but the learned Advocate has submitted that as a resull of this faulty assessment, even if some 9 students are required to be disqualified that the wrong 9 students have been penalised and that therefore, the admissions of these petitioners should be directed to be regularised as they are not the ones who deserve to have been disapproved of.

(3.) the defence pleaded by the college authorities is anex tremely ingenious one insofar as they have come out with the plea that in the previous academic year for a variety of reasons including road accidents, 9 students left the college and they contend that because of these circumstance, they were justified in admitting 9 more students in the subsequent academic year. The further defence is that the state government had issued a clarification in the year 1990 wherein it was pointed out that if a certain number of students have left the institution then it would be permissible to carry over this number to the following year and admit that many students in excess. To quote the exact phraseology of the gentleman who issued this circular on behalf of the state government, he has stated that this according to him is a logical conclusion of a situation whereby the overall number of students remains unchanged and therefore according to him there would be no excessive drain or strain on the college facilities. I need to mention here, that the learned Advocate who represents the university and the central government counsel have opposed any such procedure being sanctioned because they have pointed out to me the relevant provisions of the various statutes whereunder it is not permissible to exceed the intake of an institution from year to year. It would be an absurdity to permit this sort of wrong logic which to my mind is thoroughly perverse and illogical, that if for any reason in a particular academic year there is any reduction in the number of students then this could be off-set in the following year by a breach of regulations. It would make a thorough mockery of the fixation of the intake limits and there is no ground whatsoever under which this could be justified. Learned Advocate who appears on behalf of the college has sought to point out that the state government does have a say with regard to the aspect of initial fixation of intake in respect of colleges. He submits that if this power vests in the government then it is open to the government to direct that there could be an alteration in respect of intake capacity. The fallacy in the arguments is that the power of the government in conjunction with the university to fix the intake is not being disputed but that power requires that if because of a change of the various facilities available in a institute it is permissible to either increase or decrease the intake that too after a due assessment, a change can be made in the figures by duly sanctioning it. This is entirely different from a situation where a subordinate officer of the state government indiscriminately issues a circular stating thereunder that irrespective of the provisions that apply and the intake that has been already fixed, that the Rule itself can be breached. This in sum and substance is what the circular mentions. This is not the first time that this court has come across circulars of this type. These circulars have no authority of law and it would be impossible for this court to hold that they are issued with honest motives. It would be highly desirable for the state government to ensure that no such irresponsible circulars are issued in future because it is very clear that documents of this type are prepared in Order to provide a cover-up for the various illegalities that are going on in the educational field. I have no doubt in my mind that documents of this type are issued in collaboration and in conjunction and collusion with those persons who are responsible for the various breaches. The circular in question therefore cannot absolve the college management as far as the present action is concerned. The university authorities and the learned central government Advocate are fully justified in pointing out that this is a clear cut case of breach of the regulations and that there can be no defence of whatsoever nature.