The Karnataka High Court has imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh on two dental colleges for seeking admission for some students to their dental courses. The two colleges — Sri Venkateshwara Dental College, Bengaluru and KVG Dental College, Sullia — approached the HC on behalf of six students. In response to this, the court said the colleges cannot make pleas on behalf of the students, as stated in a report by PTI. Further, the court said that if in case the petitioner students were really deprived of the seats to which they were eligible, they would have approached the court independently. The colleges cannot step in the students' shoes and file the writ petitions, it added.
Additionally, the Division Bench of Justice B Veerappa and Justice KS Hemalekha said that the petitioners have wasted the court's time for more than half a day by depriving the other genuine litigants. As a course of action, a fine of Rs 1 lakh was imposed on both colleges.
But why did the two colleges file a plea?
Both colleges claimed that the Karnataka Examination Authority (KEA) website was not opening on May 2 and 3 when the students had to register and pay for the mop-up round of counselling for BDS (Bachelor of Dental Surgery) courses. However, KEA maintained that the website was open for mop-up round registration from March 29, 2022, to March 31 and the date was extended to April 1, 2022. At this time, 1,513 students registered and only one of the six students who had filed these petitions had registered. The colleges did not dispute this fact.
While Sri Venkateshwara Dental College claimed that 6 seats among the 40 in the college were vacant, KVG Dental College claimed 4 among the 100 seats in the college were vacant. The Bench noted that this was the real reason behind colleges approaching the court to get an order to fill up the vacant posts. Thus, the exercise of the colleges is for its personal benefit and not for the benefit of the students, the Bench stated. Furthermore, the court noted that the addresses of the students who were the joint petitioners were mentioned as 'care of' the respective colleges. "We are bowled over as to how the students come under the 'care of' the college of which they are not the students at all," the court opined.
Consequently, the court dismissed the petitions and said that filing and contesting these types of litigation is nothing but a waste of precious public time and that of this court, and is nothing but harassing the respondent authorities unnecessarily. "It is the duty of the courts to ensure that such litigations shall be weeded out at the first instance rather than allowing to be festered and thereby coming in the way of genuine litigants seeking justice, treating the court as "Temple of Justice" and to protect precious public and judicial time of the court," it said.
