The Hindu : Karnataka / Bangalore News : Maharashtra student challenges Bill

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Apr 27, 2006

Karnataka

Karnataka - Bangalore

Maharashtra student challenges Bill

Staff Reporter

high courtround-up

BANGALORE: A student from Maharashtra has become the first person ever to challenge the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Government Seats in Professional Educational Colleges Rules, 2006.

The Bill was in the news recently when it was signed by Governor T.N. Chaturvedi. It had been passed in the last session of the legislature. The Bill seeks to regulate admission of candidates to medical, dental, engineering and other professional courses in the State.

In her petition, Neharika from Sholapur in Maharashtra, not only challenged the rules but also the subsequent notification by the Common Entrance Test (CET) Cell on February 28, 2006 and published in the media on March 1.

The rules Ms. Neharika is challenging relate to the academic eligibility and determination of merit for admission to medical and dental courses. She said she was a Horanadu Kannadiga and that she wanted to study medicine in a college in Karnataka. She said she had appeared for the second year pre-university examination with physics, chemistry, mathematics and biology as her subjects in April 2006 and she expected to score goods marks.

She said the different standards set for the undergraduate courses in professional courses was discriminatory and unfair. She said it was also contrary to the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. Moreover, the State had no power to make rules under the 1984 Act for fixing the academic eligibility and qualification for admission to courses.

She urged the court to strike down Rule 3 and Rule 4 of the 2006 Rules as it was ultra vires and also sought an interim stay on the CET notification.

Justice N.K. Patil, before whom the matter came up, ordered issue of notice and adjourned further hearing on the case.

Interlocutory application

The State Government will be filing an interlocutory application (IA) before the court on Thursday urging it to vacate an interim stay granted by a single judge on Tuesday on the show-cause notice annulling the ranking of three postgraduate (PG) students.

While Justice N.K. Patil had refused to entertain the plea of students whose ranks in the Postgraduate Common Entrance Test (PGCET) 2006 conducted by the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (RGUHS) had been annulled by the State Government, Justice Ananda Byrereddy had granted ex parte interim stay on a similar petition by three PG students, Nitsh Desai, Anand Haliyal and Neha Bansal.

In its IA, the State said a single Bench had not granted any relief to the students after it was informed that the action in annulling the ranks obtained by 21 students had been taken after an inquiry was conducted. The inquiry prima facie had found malpractices in the conduct of the PGCET 2006 and indicted some high-ranking officials of the RGUHS.

The IA said the single Bench had examined the matter in detail and that it had rejected the petitions of the students after going through the matter in detail and after hearing both the parties.

The IA said an ex parte order was passed in the case of three students without affording an opportunity to the State to place its views before the court. It said even the Supreme Court had refused to give any relief to students in cases where malpractices were alleged to have taken place. In this case, the malpractice had already been proved.

Suggestion

The court has compared delayed arbitration proceedings to the "Chakravyuha" into which Abhimanyu had entered into in the Mahabharata and suggested to the Centre to introduce a clause in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act providing for an exit point.

Justice D.V. Shylendra Kumar made these observations in a case involving two parties who had entered into an agreement with an arbitration clause for appointment of an arbitrator. However due to delay, the matter before the arbitrator was not decided.

Senior advocate Urval Ramanand, who appeared for one of the parties, stated that in the Act there was provision for only an entry point.

Justice Shylendra Kumar observed, "that unfortunately for those who enter the labyrinth of arbitration proceedings leave alone exits through different paths, there is not a single path for exit and it is this area which needs to be addressed by a legislation.

"It is like a situation of Abhimanyu having entered the Chakravyuha and who is unable to extricate himself from this vicious circle and perishes within it.

"Let is not happen to the hapless litigants who opt for arbitral dispute resolutions and enter the maze of arbitration proceedings and can perish within the maze when the arbitration proceedings fail to yield results."

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail