"Illegally Denied" Sports Quota Admission In 2022-23, Karnataka High Court Directs Authorities To Admit Medical Student This Year
The Karnataka High Court has come to the aid of a student who was illegally denied admission to MBBS course in the academic year 2022-23, against sports quota. The court has directed authorities to admit her to the course this year.A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind allowed the petition filed by Siri Srikanth and said “The respondent authorities are...
The Karnataka High Court has come to the aid of a student who was illegally denied admission to MBBS course in the academic year 2022-23, against sports quota. The court has directed authorities to admit her to the course this year.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind allowed the petition filed by Siri Srikanth and said “The respondent authorities are directed to admit the petitioner to the MBBS course on a seat in the quota reserved for sports for the academic year 2024-25 without applying any seniority among the candidates eligible for admission under the Sports Quota in the CET/NEET Examination conducted for the academic year 2024-25.”
The petitioner is a swimmer and has won several medals. She appeared for CET and NEET Examinations for the academic year 2022-23. The Karnataka Examination Authority [KEA] published a list of candidates comprising 618 candidates eligible for admission under the Sports Quota. The petitioner was placed at Sl.No.24. However, the list was revised on 08.10.2022, changing the petitioner's place to Sl.No.29.
Alleging irregularity, the petitioner claimed respondent No.7 (Sathwik Shivanand) was at Sl.No.117 in the first list and at Sl.No.129 in the second list and admitted to Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Nehru Nagar, Belgaum. While, another candidate named Pranitha S.R, whose name was not figured in the published list was admitted to Dr. Chandramma Dayanandasagar Institute of Medical Education.
The petitioner relied on Rule 9(1)(B) of Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Government Seats in Professional Educational Institutions Rules, 2006, stating that she was categorised as P-IV while Respondent No.7 was categorised as P-V. Thus the authorities have committed an error in denying admission to her.
The respondents contended that the list of eligible candidates under the Sports Quota and selection thereof is in conformity with the Rules of 2006. Since the respondent No.7 is more meritorious than petitioner the admission is granted to him. Moreover, the relevant academic year has commenced and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
Findings:
The bench noted that Rule 9(1) (B) of Rules 2006 provides preference among the candidates seeking admission under the Sports Quota. The proviso provides for priority among the five categories. As per the proviso, P-I shall be considered first, P-II shall be considered second, P-III shall be considered third, P-IV shall be considered fourth and then the P-V candidates.
Petitioner had represented the Karnataka State, won medals/cups and is classified as P-IV. Respondent No.7 had represented Karnataka State and is classified as P-V.
The court said “Applying the priority provided under the proviso, the petitioner is to be preferred over respondent No.7. In view of Rule 9(1)(B) and the proviso of Rules 2006, preferring respondent No.7 against the appellant is incorrect.”
Noting that in the previous round of litigation the Supreme Court had permitted the petitioner to be considered in the re-doing exercise but the authorities have not permitted the petitioner to participate, it rejected the contention of KEA that the NEET ranking of petitioner-Siri Srikanth is 8,24,248 and respondent No.7-Satvik Shivanand is 63,498 thus R7 was preferred.
It held, “As per Rule 9(1)(B) of Rules 2006, when the candidates are in different categories, as per the proviso, priority to be given as per their categories i.e., in sequence of P-I to P-V. The endorsement dated 22.02.2023 rejecting the petitioner's claim on the ground of NEET ranking is not sustainable.”
It added “The interpretation of KEA that the inter-se merit/ranking is to be applied among the category of candidates claiming Sports Quota in P-IV and P-V is contrary to Rules 9(1)(B) of Rules 2006 and is unsustainable.”
Considering that the petitioner has been agitating for her rights from the earliest point of time. In all the orders referred to by the respondents, the manner of selection of candidates under Rule 9(1)(B) of Rules 2006 was not considered, the court said “The dismissal of earlier writ petitions shall not prejudice or take away the right of the petitioner to be considered for admission under the Sports Quota in terms of Rule 9(1)(B) of the Rules 2006.”
Expressing that it cannot allow the petitioner to suffer due to illegal action of the respondent-authorities in denying admission to her by wrongly interpreting Rule 9(1)(B) of Rules 2006 and since the admission already being made to respondent No.7 cannot be cancelled as respondent No.7 is also meritorious, secured admission and is pursuing MBBS course, Court said “In the absence of any proof of active role being played by respondent No.7, he cannot be made to suffer for the illegal acts of respondent-authorities. This Court is not inclined to disturb the admission of respondent No.7.”
It added “As the petitioner was entitled to admission to MBBS course in the academic year 2022-23, against sports quota, the respondent authorities can be directed to admit the petitioner to MBBS course for the academic year 2024-25 against the seats reserved under Sports Quota.”
Accordingly, it allowed the petition.
Appearance: Advocate Arun B M for Petitioner.
Advocate N K Ramesh, for R1.
AGA Mamatha Shetty, for R2, 5 & 6.
Advocate N Khetty for R3.
DSGI H. Shanthi Bhushan, for R4.
Advocate Sridhar Prabhu, for R7.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 337
Case Title: Siri Srikanth AND The Karnataka Examination Authority & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.24645 OF 2023