25759 OF 2012 (EDN-CET). BETWEEN: ... BOOK VIDE ANENXURE-D DATED
NIL 2012-13 FOR THE ... Diploma CET 2012 of the KEA states that the candidate.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 25759 OF 2012 (EDN-CET) BETWEEN: SHRIKANTH WADDAR S/O GURAPPA WADDAR, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O GANI VILLAGE, TQ JAMKHANDI BAGALKOTE DISTRICT 587 301 AND NO. 148/5, 3RD MAIN, SHARDAMBA NAGAR, PAI LAYOUT, HULIMAVU, BANNERUGHATTA ROAD, BANGALROE 560076 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. V S GUNJAL, ADV.) AND 1.
KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE-560003.
2.
STATE OF KARNATAKA THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, (HIGHER EDUCATION) EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
2
BANGALORE-560001. 3.
THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION OPP. MAHARANIS COLLEGE, PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE 560001 BY ITS DIRECTOR
4.
AICTE REGIONAL OFFICE PRASANNA KUMAR BLOCK CENTRAL COLLEGE CAMPUS BANGALORE – 560009
5
THE VISHWESHWARAIAH TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY MACHE, BELGAUM – 590114 BY ITS REGISTRAR ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N K RAMESH, ADV. FOR R1 SRI. N.B.VISWANATH, AGA FOR R2 & R3 SRI. P.S.DINESH KUMAR, ADV. FOR R4 SRI. K.S.BHARATH KUMAR, ADV. FOR R5)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH SUCH CONDITIONS WHICH ARE DISCRIMINATORY AND ARBITRARY CONDITIONS IN THE AT ANNEXURE-F RULE 3[A][II] DATED NIL [RELEVANT EXTRACT PRODUCED] IN THE KEA COMMON ENTRANCE TEST 2012 AS DISPLAYED IN THE KEA WEB SITE HTTP://KEA.KAR.NIC.IN FOR ACADEMIC YEARS 2012-13 CONDITION PERTAINING TO ACADEMIC ELIGIBILITY, ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT WHICH DISCRIMINATES THE STUDENTS FROM SEEKING LATERAL ADMISSION BASE ON TWO YEARS PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE, AS VIOLATES ARTICLE 13, 14 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND REGRESSIVE, UNREASONABLE RESTRICTION ON THE STUDENTS BE QUASHED AS ARBITRARY, ILLOGICAL AND INADEQUATE AND CONSEQUENTLY ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
3
NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO REMOVE THE DISCRIMINATORY CLAUSES IN PROCEDURE ADMISSION FOR LATERAL ENTRY BE UNDER GRADUATE COURSES IN FUTURE AND ALSO FROM THE CURRENT ACADEMIC YEAR 2012-13, SUBJECT TO THE ELIGIBILITY CONDITIONS LAID DOWN BY THE AICTE VIDE AICTE NOTIFICATION APPENDIX I OF THE APPROVAL PROCESS HAND BOOK VIDE ANENXURE-D DATED NIL 2012-13 FOR THE ENSUING ACADEMIC YEAR 2012-13; AND ETC. THIS W.P. IS COMING ON FOR PRL.HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner claiming to have passed the Secondary School Leaving Certificate (SSLC) and a certificate course in Electrical Mechanic during the year 2004 at the
Government
Industrial
Training
Institute,
Jamkhandi, asserts to be an employee of SNS Industries until 2008, whereafterwards was admitted to the Diploma in Electronics & Communications Engineering course (3½ years) at Nadiger Evening Polytechnic whence he worked at GE-BEL Limited and is presently employed by the Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited. According to the petitioner, Day Scholars will
4
have to undergo the said course study for 3 years, while the students admitted to the evening diploma will have to undergo the course study for 3½ years.
Petitioner
having evinced interest to appear for the Common Entrance
Test
(CET)
of
2012
conducted
by
the
Karnataka Examination Authority, for short ‘KEA’, for a lateral entry to the 2nd year B.E. degree course, has presented this petition challenging the vires of Rule 3(A)(ii) dt. Nil, of the Information Brochure issued by the KEA pertaining to the academic eligibility of 2 years professional experience after obtaining the Diploma, as being violative of Articles 13, 14 and 21 of the Constitution
of
India
and
for
a
mandamus
to
respondents 1 to 3 to permit the petitioner to appear for the CET conducted by the KEA without insisting on the said condition.
5
2.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner while
reiterating the averments in the memorandum of writ petition, submits that Rule 3(A)(ii) of the Information Brochure issued by the KEA is not in consonance with Clause 9.1 of the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) Approval Process Handbook (201213). According to the learned Counsel, clause 9.1 states that
part-time
programs
are
only
for
working
professionals or professionals with atleast 2 years of work experience and does not indicate that the 2 years of work experience must be after obtaining the Diploma, while Clause 3(A)(ii) of the Information Brochure for Diploma CET 2012 of the KEA states that the candidate after obtaining the Diploma, must have a minimum of 2 years of professional experience in the branch of Engineering/Technology in which he or she holds a Diploma as of 1st September of the year of admission.
6
3. Sri. P.S.Dinesh Kumar, learned Counsel for the AICTE – respondent No.4, submits that Clause No. 9.1 ought to be read as 2 years work experience after the securing a Diploma. Sri. N.K.Ramesh, learned Counsel for KEA, too adopts the submission of Sri.P.S.Dinesh Kumar.
4.
Government advocate for respondent No.2
submits that Annex.L – representation addressed to the Director, Board of Technical Education in Karnataka, is ceased of the request of evening polytechnic students at Bangalore for waiver of industrial experience of 2 years after obtaining the diploma to join the evening B.E. course
as
organisations.
are
already
working
under
various
According to the Learned Counsel the
said representation would be considered and orders passed, in accordance with law, if granted reasonable time. Learned Counsel, hastens to add that if the Board
7
of Technical Education in Karnataka decides in favour of the petitioner, then the KEA is bound by the decision.
5. Since the question, whether the 2 years work experience under Clause 9.1 of the AICTE Approval Process obtaining
Handbook the
implies
Diploma
in
work an
experience Evening
after
Diploma
Programme or whether it is in the process of obtaining the evening diploma, needs to be addressed by the Director, Board of Technical Education in Karnataka. Without expressing any opinion over the merit or demerit of the contention of the petitioner and allowing the Board of Technical Education in Karnataka to take a decision thereon, and if the petitioner is aggrieved, may question the same in an appropriate legal proceeding before a competent court of law. Petitioner is permitted to appear for the CET 2012 scheduled on the 19th August 2012 after the KEA accepts the petitioner’s
8
application by issuing an admission ticket.
It is
needless to state that the academic and professional eligibility of the petitioner is subject to the outcome of the decision of the Director of Technical Education.
Petition is accordingly disposed of.
The Director of technical education to comply by 31/8/2012.
Sd/JUDGE Rd/-
