MALLIKARJUNA MUDHAGAL NAGAPPA AND ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

 A            MALLIKARJUNA MUDHAGAL NAGAPPA AND ORS.                                  \

                                            v.
                       STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.                                    -
                                SEPTEMBER 4, 2000

B          [M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.]


           Educational Institution-Maximum number of students permitted only
     60-Actually students admitted 75-15 excess students-Not permitted to
     take examinations-Writ petition before High Court-Dismissal-Appeal
c    before Supreme Court-Held their admission was invalid and beyond permitted
     quota.

           State ofPunjab v. Renuka Sing/a, AIR (1994) SC 59 and Maharashtra
     v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale, AIR (1992) SC 1926, relied on.
D         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.
     14409-14503 of2000.

           Computer Code Nos. 5141-5155 of2000.

          From the Judgment and Order dated 20.1.2000 of the Karnataka High
E    Court in W.A. No. 3773-87 of 1999 Mallikarjuna Mudhagal Nagappa.

           Naresh Kaushik, N.K. Roy, Ms. Shilpa Chohan and Ms. Lalita Kaushik
     for the Petitioners.

           The following Order of the Court was delivered :
F
         The maximum intake of the institution is 30 students per section. The
  institution has two sections. The maximum number that can be admitted is 60.
  The petitioners before us are the extra 15 students who were admitted, the
  total being 75 students. In the High Court, the students and the institution
  had filed a joint writ petition and failed. Hence the 15 students also have filed
G the S.L.P.                                                                              .;•
           We are not impressed by the fact that the students are before us
     challenging the orders of the department that they cannot be permitted to take
     the examination. If their admission was not valid and was beyond the permitted
H    quota of 60, we cannot help the petitioners.
                                          102                                             .
                                                                                          I
            MALLIKARJUNA MUDHAGAL NAGAPPA v. STATE                                103

      Learned Single Judge and the Division Bench were absolutely right in               A
applying the decision of this Court in State of Punjab v. Renuka Sing/a, AIR
(1994) SC 59 (para 8) and State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale,
AIR (1992) SC 1926 and in declaring that this admission was illegal. The
relevant passages of the above said judgments are as follows:

         State of Punjab v. Renuka Sing/a, AIR 1994 SC 59.                               B
              "The admission in Medical Course throughout India is governed
         by different statutory provisions including regulations framed under
         different Acts. During last several years efforts have been made to
         regulate the admissions to the different medical institutions, in order
         to achieve academic excellence. But, at the same time, a counter                C
         attempt is also apparent and discernible, by which the candidates,
         who are not able to get admissions against the seats fixed by different
         statutory authorities, file writ applications and interim or final directions
         are given to admit such petitioners. We fail to appreciate as to how
         the High Court or this Court can be generous or liberal in issuing such         D
         directions which in substance amount to directing the authorities
         concerned to violate their own statutory rules and regulations in
         respect of admissions of students".

         State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale, AIR (1992) SC
         1926.
                                                                                         E
             "Slackening the standard and judicial fiat to control the mode of
         education and examining system are detrimental to the efficient
         management of the education. The directions to the appellants to
         disobey the law is subversive of the rule of law, a breeding source for
         indiscipline, The High Court, therefore, committed manifest error in            p
         law, in exercising its prerogative power conferred under Article 226 of
         the Constitution, directing the appellants to permit the students to
         appear for the examination etc.".

     We respectfully agree with the view expressed m the above said
judgments.                                                                               G
     The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed accordingly.

T.N.A.                                                         Petitions dismissed.