AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Bharuka, J.—The petitioners have approached this Court for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to approve the admissions of the students admitted in the petitioner Colleges i.e., B.M.S. College of Engineering, Bangalore (in short, "the first college"), National Institute of Engineering, Mysore(in short, "the second college), Malnad Engineering College, Hassan (in short, "the third college") and P.E.S. College of Engineering (in short, "the fourth college) during the academic year 1994-95 in different courses of Bachelor of Engineering Degree. These Colleges are affiliated to either of the two respondent Universities.
Since in the present and several other Writ Petitions of the like nature involved ascertainment of certain facts, like the intake capacity of the Colleges and the actual admissions made therein through the CET Cell and by the managements as also some other connected matters, it was found convenient to get a report on these aspects from the Education Secretary. Accordingly as directed by me under order dated 1.12.1995 in Writ Petition Nos. 23729-31/95, Learned Education Secretary-II, after giving reasonable opportunity to the College managements of placing on record all the relevant documents and on hearing them, as also after taking into account the official records in this connection, has submitted his report dated 11.12.1995 setting out all the necessary details required for disposal of this set of Writ Petitions. College managements have not disputed these basic facts.
The first and second Colleges are aided private institutions. The total approved intake of these two Colleges till the academic year 1993-94 was of 815 and 390 students respectively. During the year 1994-95, the Government under its order No. ED 41 DTE 94(1) dated 15.9.94 increased the said intake by 87 and 49 seats respectively subject to the conditions that (i) these additional seats will be "free seats", and (ii) these seats will be allotted by the CET cell on the basis of merit list prepared by it.
Thus the total permissible intake of the first College for 1994-95 became that of 902 seats. Against this, during this year 943 students have been given admissions. Thus there are 41 excess admissions.
Similarly, the total permissible intake of the second College, during this year became that of 439 seats. Against this, 444 students have been given admissions. Thus there are 5 excess admissions.
So far as the third and fourth Colleges are concerned, their total approved intake during the year was 634 and 493 students respectively. Against this, admissions made are 564 and 425 respectively. Thus the admissions made in these Colleges are within their permissible overall intake.
The details of the Course-wise approved intake of the colleges and the actual admissions made are the following:
(i) Re: B.M.S. College of Engineering, Bangalore.
Sl.
Engineering
Approved
Actual
Excess
No.
Course
Intake
Admissions
Admissions
1.
Civil
102
108
6
2.
Mechanical
112
123
11
3.
Electrical
72
71
-
4.
Electronics
101
110
9
5.
Computer Sc.
70
80
10
6.
Industrial Production
72
78
6
7.
Information Science
60
66
6
8.
Architecture
85
91
6
9.
Transportation
40
24
-
10.
Instrumentation
38
41
3
11.
Tele-Communication
60
64
4
12.
Medical Electronics
30
33
3
13.
Manufacture
30
27
-
14.
Printing Technology
30
27
-
TOTAL
902
943
41
(ii) Re: National Institute of Engineering, Mysore.
Sl. No.
Engineering Course
Approved Intake
Actual Admissions
Excess Admissions
1.
Civil
59
56
-
2.
Mechanical
128
133
5
3.
Electrical
68
66
-
4.
Electronics
68
77
9
5.
Computer Sc.
68
65
6.
Industrial Production
48
47
-
TOTAL
439
444
5
(iii) Re: Malnad College of Engineering, Hassan.
Sl.
Engineering
Approved
Actual
Excess
No.
Course
Intake
Admissions
Admissions
1.
Civil
68
23
-
2.
Mechanical
128
139
11
3.
Electrical
58
61
3
4.
Electronics
98
106
8
5.
Computer Sc.
68
65
-
6.
Industrial Production
58
47
-
7.
Automobile
58
51
-
8.
Architecture
40
24
-
9.
Instrumentation
58
48
-
TOTAL
634
564
-
(iv) Re: P.E.S. Engineering College, Mandya.
Sl. No.
Engineering Course
Approved Intake
Actual Admissions
Excess Admissions
1.
Civil
98
50
-
2.
Mechanical
98
99
1
3.
Electrical
48
44
-
4.
Electronics
68
73
5
5.
Computer Sc.
68
70
2
6.
Industrial Production
47
41
-
7.
Automobile
36
29
-
8.
Environmental
30
19
-
TOTAL
493
425
-
From the Tabular Charts and the facts set out above, it is clear that so far as the first and second Colleges are concerned the admissions made therein are in excess of their permissible intake both, over all and course wise. But so far as the third and fourth Colleges are concerned, the excess admissions pertains to only Course-wise intake.
The grievance raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the respondent Director of Technical Education has withheld the approval of the admissions given by the Management of the petitioner Colleges on the ground that the said admissions have been accorded by them in excess of the permissible 5% Management quota.
In Monika Pahwa Vs. Director of Medical Education, , I have in detail considered the contentions of the Dental Colleges similar to those raised herein regarding the rights of the managements to admit students in the Colleges of their own. Following the same reasoning, it is held that -
(i) the Engineering Colleges in the State, keeping in view Rule 12B of the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Engineering, Medical and Dental Courses Rules, 1993 (hereinafter in short the "Rules") as it existed till 14.9.1994 could have filled up 15% of their approved intake as management quota.
(ii) on and after 15.9.1994 such Colleges, keeping in view the order of the Supreme Court in Unni Krishnan, J.P. and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others etc. etc., and consequent amendment of Rule 12B under GSR 148 dated 15.9.1994 could have filled only 5% of their intake provided any seat to that extent against management quota was still lying vacant, and,
(iii) no last date had been prescribed by any competent authority i.e. either the State Government or the authorities under the Rules in terms of Para(9) of the Scheme envisaged under Unni Krishnan, J.P. and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others etc. etc., setting liberty to the management to fill up any seat in excess of management quota fixed under Rule 12B of the Rules.
Now coming back to the facts of individual Colleges, so far as the first College namely, B.M.S. College of Engineering is concerned, it could have admitted only 15% of its original intake being 815 ie., against 121 payment seats prior to 15.9.1994 as Management quota. It is so because, as noticed above, the additional 87 seats increased during this year by the Government under its order dated 15.9.1994 could have been filled only by the CET cell. But against its said quota of 121 seats, the management of this College has admitted 131 students prior to 15.9.1994. Thus the Management has given admissions to 10 students in excess of its Management quota.
So far as the second College namely, National Institute of Engineering, Mysore is concerned, it could have admitted only 15% of its original intake being 390 ie., against 58 payment seats prior to 15.9.1994 as Management quota, it is so because, as noticed above, the additional 49 seats increased during this year by the Government under its order dated 15.9.1994 could have been filled only by the CET cell. Against its said quota of 58 seats, the Management of this College has admitted only 47 students prior to 15.9.1994. As such the College has not committed any infirmity in this regard.
So far as the third and fourth Colleges namely, Malnad College of Engineering and P.E.S. College of Engineering are concerned, as per the report of Education Secretary, the admissions made against the management quotas were made before 15.9.1994 within the permissible 15% of its overall intake. Thus there is no infirmity to this extent.
It further transpires from the materials placed on record that without taking notice of the said facts that the Managements of the first and second Colleges had already made admissions prior to 15.9.1994 to the extent, indicated above, the CET cell made further allotments to the said Colleges, resulting in excess admissions.
In first College, as I have stated above, there are 41 excess admissions. Out of these, 10 excess admissions are attributable to the Management since against a permissible Management quota of 121 seats, it had given admissions to 131 students. But so far as the remaining 31 admissions are concerned, these have occurred because of the negligence committed by the CET cell. Similarly, in the case of the second College, all the 5 excess admissions have taken place because of the excess allotments made by the CET cell.
Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, irrespective of as to for whose fault the excess admissions have occurred, the fact remains that in respect of all these four Colleges the permissible intake has been violated, in respect of overall intake and/or Course wise intake. Clause (b) of Section 53(10) of Karnataka Universities Act, 1976 provides that the maximum number of students to be admitted to a course of study shall not exceed the intake fixed by the University or the Government as the case may be, and any admissions made in the excess of the intake so fixed shall be invalid. Therefore, if admissions are found in excess of the intake fixed by the University/Government, the University, which is bound by the provisions of the Statute under which it has been created, cannot approve such admissions.
It is equally true that in case the University finds that the College Management has indulged in giving admissions in excess of approved intake, either Course wise and/or in overall, it will be statutorily bound to disapprove such excess admissions and initiate appropriate actions against such erring institutions (See Narendra Bahadur Singh and Others Vs. Gorakhpur University and Another, .
In the case of Chinnam Chandrajah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, , it has been held by Supreme Court that admission capacity of a College is fixed by the statutory authorities by taking into consideration the infrastructure, equipment and the staff employed in such institutions and the Court cannot disturb that balance between the capacity of the institution and the number of admissions on compassionate grounds. It has further been held that the High Court or Supreme Court cannot be generous or liberal in issuing directions which in substance amounts to directing the authorities concerned to violate their own Statutory Rules and Regulations in respect of admissions of students.
Therefore, no direction can be issued by this Court under its Writ Jurisdiction to the respondents to approve the excess admissions.
Any how, to undo the injustice caused to students who have been admitted by the respective Colleges in excess to its course wise intake, the Government and the University may consider the desirability of adjusting such students against the seats available in respective Courses in other affiliated Colleges or make such other adjustments as may be permissible in law.
Subject to the said observations and directions, on the facts as found and keeping in view the legal principles set out above, the respondents are directed to approve the admissions of such students who are found to have been admitted within the approved intake of the College, both overall and course wise, provided they are otherwise found to be eligible to pursue the Course as per law.
Writ Petitions are accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs