Karnataka High Court Quashes Seat Matrix Of Telugu Linguistic Minority In A Medical College

A division bench of Justice K. Somashekar And Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde said, "The impugned communication dated 31.01.2022 and revised seat matrix are quashed in so far as it is applicable to the petitioner's institution (NAVODAYA MEDICAL COLLEGE).

It added, "The impugned revised seat matrix is quashed in so far as it is applicable to the petitioner's institution. Consequently the 3rd respondent Karnataka Education Authority is directed to conduct the second round of counselling afresh, permitting eligible Telugu linguistic minority students in the State of Karnataka to apply for admission to undergraduate and postgraduate courses in medicine, in the petitioner's institution."

Case Background:

The college had approached the court questioning the revised seat matrix, by which Telugu Linguistic minority students residing outside Hyderabad-Karnataka region are not allowed to seek admission under the Telugu Linguistic minority quota in the petitioner institution.

The court on 02.02.2022 passed a stay order staying all further proceedings under Annexures 'L' and 'L1' the impugned seat matrix. Subsequently, on an application filed by the respondents, vide order dated 24.02.2022, the earlier interim order was partially modified.

Petitioners submissions:

Senior Advocate Madhusudhan Nayak appearing for the petitioner said, "The petitioner institution is admittedly a linguistic minority institution and is having certain protection under Article 15(6) and 30 of the Constitution of India and the impugned seat matrix violates the rights guaranteed under the aforementioned articles."

Further it was said, "The institution is established in Karnataka for the benefit of Telugu linguistic minorities in the entire State of Karnataka. In terms of Rule 2016 referred above, the institution is under obligation to reserve a certain specified percentage of seats (66% of the 55% seats allotted to the institution) for Telugu speaking students in Karnataka as such the revised seat matrix which restricts the reservation only to Telugu minority students from Hyderabad Karnataka is illegal and contrary to Rule 4 (6) of Rules 2016.

It was also contended that, "The State is acting contrary to the terms of the consensual agreement wherein it has agreed that institutions have no obligation to reserve seats under Article 371J quota out of 55% of seats available at the disposal of the institution. And State having agreed to fulfil its obligation under Article 371J, in the seats surrendered by the institution in favour of the State (20% and 25% for postgraduate and undergraduate courses respectively) has unilaterally modified the seat matrix contrary to the terms of the agreement.

It was also said that the vires of the Order of 2013 passed under Article 371J of the Constitution of India is called in question in a batch of writ petitions and in those cases, this court has passed an interim order staying the operation of the Order of 2013. Thus there is no law/ policy of the State qua article 371J, in force that would enable the State to implement its reservation policy as required under Article 371J.

State governments arguments:

The government contended that the institution is a Member of the Association of Minority Professional Colleges in Karnataka (AMPCK.) and the Association has entered a consensual agreement with the State relating to seat matrix for undergraduate and postgraduate courses in medicine for the academic year 2020-2022. The State has revised the seat matrix in tune with the requirement of the agreement and the Petitioner institution is claiming rights contrary to the terms of the consensual agreement.

Further, the consensual agreement in spirit is nothing but a step towards implementing the State's obligation under Article 371J of the Constitutionof India and the same is binding on the petitioner.

It was contended that "In terms of the agreement, the petitioner is bound to provide reservations to Telugu linguistic minority students from Hyderabad Region and not to the Telugu minority students who are outside Hyderabad Karnataka though they are residing in Karnataka.

The state government also raised objection on the maintainability of the petition on the ground that petitioner is challenging the consensual agreement. It was said "The right conferred under Article 30 of the Constitution of India in favour of minority institutions is not absolute and it is subjected to reasonable restrictions to be imposed by the Parliament or State."

Submission of Karnataka Educational Authority:

It was said, "The terms and conditions of the agreement would demonstrate that the petitioner institution has consented to provide reservation as mandated under Article 371J. Thus Telugu speaking linguistic minority students cannot claim reservation in an institution located in Hyderabad-Karnataka region if the students are not from Hyderabad-Karnataka region.

Further, the petitioner is not a party to the consensual agreement and the consensual agreement is between the State and the fifth respondent Association in which the petitioner is only a member. Since the Association has not questioned the action of the State, the petitioner cannot be permitted to question the action of the State.

Court findings:

The court referring to Article 371J of the Constitution of India said ,"It is apparent that the policy of the State under Article 371J of the Constitution of India can be formulated and implemented only through the mechanism provided under Article 371J. Said mechanism contemplates an order by the Hon'ble President of India, conferring the responsibility on the Governor, who in turn, has to pass necessary order in conformity with the requirement of Article 371J of the Constitution of India spelt out in the said article."

It added, "Of course, an exercise is carried out by the Governor in terms of order of 2013. However, the operation of the 2013 order is stayed vide interim stay granted by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.20201/2014. This being the position, the contention of respondent/State that consensual agreement entered under S.4A of the Act of 2006 should be treated on par or similar to an order under Article 371J of the Constitution of India cannot be accepted for the simple reason an order under Article 371J of the Constitution of India has to be promulgated only in the manner prescribed under Article 371J of the Constitution of India."

It then held, "The consensual agreement dated 19.01.2022, cannot be treated as a 'law' or an 'order' to implement the obligation under Article 371J of the Constitution of India. The consensual agreement under scrutiny is only an ad-hoc arrangement between the parties to balance the conflicting claims in the matter of seat arrangements and other incidental matters relating to the admission of students to the professional course and it cannot have a status of an order under Article 371J."

Seat Sharing Rules Applicable to Entire Karnataka

The court then referred to the Rules 2016 and said ,"The Rules 2016 provides for filling up of seats by taking into consideration the entire State as one unit as noticed in Rule 4(6) of 2016 Rules. In addition to this, para 3 c stipulates that the Members of AMPCK are exempted from making any separate reservation under Article 15(5) or Article 371J of the Constitutions of India."

It observed "From a combined reading of these clauses, there is no difficulty in holding that the consensual agreement doesn't restrict the institution from filling up 66% of the seats out of 55% of the total seats available to it by treating the entire State of Karnataka as one unit."

Petition Maintainable

The court noted indeed, it is true that the Court would be extremely slow in exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 when it comes to contractual obligations. However, there is no absolute bar to deal with petitions relating to contractual obligations. If the contract is styled as an instrument to implement the State policy or if the contract is contrary to the binding provision of law and where such contract entered by the State is likely to affect persons (students in this case) who are not parties to the contract, or if the contract has an element of public law, (touching the reservation policy in this case) then the writ court can entertain the petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

It then observed, "The petition is to enforce a statutory right that is incidentally recorded in the agreement. In such a situation there is no difficulty in holding that a writ petition is maintainable."

It then went on to hold that, "It is to be noticed that the 2016 Rules provide for reservation to the linguistic minority students for the entire state where the minority institution is located. When the Rules 2016, enacted by the State itself provides for such representation, in the absence of any policy or order under Article 371J, it is not open to the State to hold that linguistic minority students are not affected by the impugned seat matrix."

Clarification:

The court clarified that the decision is rendered in these petitions, adjudicating the rights and liabilities of the parties under the consensual agreement dated 19.01.2022. The questions relating to the reservation in Educational Institutions located in Hyderabad-Karnataka region, under The Karnataka Educational Institutions (Regulations of Admission in the Hyderabad-Karnataka Region) (Order - 2013) is not adjudicated in this order as the said questions are to be adjudicated in W.P.No.20201/2014 and connected matters.

Case Title: NAVODAYA MEDICAL COLLEGE v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: W.P.NO.200365/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 79

Date of Order: 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2022

Appearance: Senior Advocate MADHU SUDAN R.NAIK, a/w Advocate SURAJ NAIK for petitioner

Advocate SUBRAMANYA, a/w Advocate VIRANGOUDA BIRADAR, FOR R1, R2 & R4;

Advocate N.K.RAMESH a/w Advocate BASAVARAJ R.MATH for R3

Advocate S.S.MAMADAPUR for R5

Click Here To Read/Download Order