Nutan Vidyalaya Society (R) vs The State of Karnataka

B.S. Patil, J.—Petitioner No. 1 is a Trust established for the purpose of imparting education in technical fields. Petitioner No. 2-college is established and managed by the Trust. Petitioner-college was extended grant-in-aid to an extent of 85% only and the remaining 15% was being met by the Management, out of the income generated through admissions to the college. The condition imposed by the State Government while extending 85% grant-in-aid was that 80% of the seats were required to be filled up by the Government and the remaining 20% were left to be filled up by the Management.

Petitioners represented to the State Government seeking 100% grant-in-aid due to financial difficulties faced by them. The State Government vide Government Order dated 16.10.2012 produced at Annexure-A, increased grant-in-aid from 85% to 100%, but made it conditional that all the admissions to the college has to be made out of the allotments made by the Government. Aggrieved by this, petitioners made a representation to the respondents to restore the earlier seat sharing formula. As this representation was not considered, they have approached this Court. They have challenged the Government Order dated 16.10.2012 insofar as it imposes in condition No. 3 100% reservation of seats for being allotted by the Government in the Government Order.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that the question is no longer res integra inasmuch as in similar circumstances in W.P. No. 36541/2013 & connected matter disposed of on 03.04.2014, this Court has held that condition imposed by the State Government was unsustainable and proportion of seat sharing which was in vogue earlier at 80:20 i.e., 80% for Government and 20% for the Management shall prevail. A copy of the said judgment is produced at Annexure-C.

As can be seen from the judgment rendered by this Court in the above referred case after considering the respective contentions of both parties and after examining the Government Order and by referring to several judgments, this Court vide order dated 03.04.2014 has already held that merely because 100% aid was granted, the power and jurisdiction of the Management to make admissions cannot be totally taken away. The observations made in page 26 & 27 of the said order in the penultimate paragraph and also the conclusion reached in the last paragraph can be usefully extracted as under:

Hence, it is to be held that the power reserved to itself under the above said Rules is not unfettered. It is open for the petitioners herein to question the present imposition of taking away their discretion in the seat selection as it existed hitherto at 80:20, to a situation where the State government would hold sway completely over the seat selection. The State government is not entitled to claim a quid pro quo, as it were, in laying down that in view of the enhancement of the Grant-in-aid, the seat selection would be completely in its domain. The third point for consideration is answered accordingly.

The writ petitions are accordingly allowed, the condition imposed by the State government that on enhancement of the Grant-in-aid, all the seats in the institutions shall be allocated to the government stands quashed. The accepted proportion of seat sharing of 80:20 shall prevail.

It has to be noticed here that the order dated 03.04.2014 passed in W.P. No. 36541/2013 & connected matter has not been challenged in appeal so far. Therefore, I am of the view that in order to ensure consistency, the order already passed by this Court in similar matter deserves to be followed.

Hence, these writ petitions are allowed in similar terms. Condition No. 3 imposed in the impugned Government Order is quashed and the proportion of seat sharing at 80:20 between the Government and the petitioner-Management shall prevail.

Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within three week''s from today.