I ThE HIGK COrRT OF KAliwAKA AT ALOrE DAD !S E 2rD DAY OF JU!E, ]998 3EFOBE iIiE rOTtLE lsR. JtTSIICE rIFR’H S. I!jyTTB BE1EET: S. Arun K”mr, 5/0 Suunda liaj, Hindu, rejor, li/a Wo.751/A, ldth , iiain lioad, liatbikere, ‘lor • 54. .. PErIIO”FB. ( Srj.Y,A. han liargam for Krs Bbanu inder, Adv.) 1. The State of Krnata, Educption Dept., Vidhana 3ouha, San alore , rep. by its Seeatsry. 2, The Secretary, C0on Entrance Cell, Oovt, o Karnat& , SJM Sanudhaya Bhaan, ‘ear Centr1 Jail, I l1n Poad, ‘rdhinagar, °apalore — 9. •, RE3POTDETTS. (y Eanjunath, Adv. for li2) This ‘r1t petition filed under Arts.22 and 2 of .he Jorst1t:tion prayin direct the respondents to allot the seat to the petitioner in the tate cry of 3(Au ; rent interim order etc. hi 5 petitIon coming on for pre1Iinery hearing this day, te Coirt made the o1lowing: . • .2 -2- The petitioner appeared in the Common Entrance Pest conducted by the CET Cefl for the oedenic session 1997-98 for ônissiøn Ticket ,AW5O7. The result published by him the CET Cell placed/r at rank no.16500 for Engineerirw Colleges and i1991+ for admission to Medical Collages ii the non-kannoda rank lists. The petitioner’s case in the writ petition now is that when be appeared for Counselling on 3.10.9?, be was informed by on Officer of the CET Cell that his rank was r.t i1091+ as published earlier, but 1+905. This change of the rank in the merit list according to the petitioner come as a matter of shock and surprise for him. His further case is that candidates who were placed between rank 11091+ and 11.1905 were admitted to medical ileges in the State while the petitioner was deprived of the benefit of such on admission on account of on otitrvry in his rank. 2. The respondents hove filed their state ment of objections in which it is interlia .. .3 - 3— pointed out that the petitioner was to doti,t soijn at rank 16500 for engineering and 11 0 9 t+. for medical admissions in the ron-&rnato1 rank list but at the request of the petitioner made in terms of an application filed by him on 3,10,97 itself, a Copy whereof has been produced as annexure Ri, be was treated as a Karrntoj student nd assigned on appropriate rank in the Kzjrntaka students rank list. consequently, the petitioner’s rank in the medical rook list was shifted frøm 1109 1 f in the non-Karnotoka list to i9G5 in the Karnatoka list. He was accordingly considered for admission to medical colleges an the basis of his rank, but on acoount of his low merit, Could not be selected, It is urged that the lost candidate admitted against the Csuol vacancies in medical colleges held the rank of 3227 as against the petitioner’s rank of 1905-G- 55. No candidate below the petitioner’ s rank having been admitted, the petitioner’s grievance ooinst non admission is according to the respondent totally unfounded. \ , Mr.I4ohan Rangam argued that the rank of the petitioner in the Kärnatoka rank list . . was t no stage notified, fle submitted that the least that the GET ought to have done the was to publish/petitioner’s rank in the ICornotaka students rank list, The failure of the GET to hove done , occording to the lezrned counsel rendered the entire process of chone of the rank assigned to the petitioner doubtful, I however see no merit in that submission. The respondent GET has satisfactorily explained the reason behind the cbujnge in the rank assigned to the petitioner. The petitioner has delierotely suppressed the moteri&. facts that led to the change in his rank. Be hs not disclosed the füet that an ppliction had been filed by him seeking his inclusion in the rank list for Karnuto1i students on. the ground that the petitioner hod studied in Karnatoka fOr 12 years. The genuineness of the said application produced by the respondent has not been disputed. In the circtstonces, it is manifest that tb change in the petitioners rank occurred on account of the petitioner’s request fOr being treated as a Karnata1 student on which request, he was included in the Karnatoka list giving .,.5 V — 5— him on appropriate rank as per his performance ot 1149O5G_55. The vex’y fact that the new rank assigned to the petitioner in the Inataka students rank list was ix,t separately notified makes little difference having regard to the admitted position that the petitioner was on the date of counselling itself told thot his rank in the Thrnotoka rank list is 1f9O5, That is cleor from the petitioner’s own adiuiion made in pore 2 of the writ petition where specifically states that the Officer of the GET bd informed him about the change in his rank fnom 1109’+ to 1)4905. It was not therefore, a case where the petitioner was igroront about the new rank assigned to him, at his request. In the circinstances, there is no room for intet%rence. This writ petition foils and is accordingly dismissed with cost assessed t Rsl,500/-. J,. 3zi Jj