Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Transitory provisions STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS I Act 8 of 2006.- It is considered necessary to provide for regulation of admission and determination of fee in professional educational institutions in the State of Karnataka and to provide for reservation of seats to persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes in professional educational institutions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgement in Islamic Academy of Education and others Vs State of Karnataka, reported in (2003) 6 SCC 697, sought to regulate admissions to professional courses through two committees, one for overseeing admissions and the other for approving the fee structure in professional educational institutions, pending enactment of appropriate law by the Parliament. 2 The Supreme Court in P.A.Inamdar and Others Vs State of Maharashtra reported in (2005) 6 SCC 537 has held that where there is more than one minority or non minority institution or similarly situated institution in the State imparting education in any one discipline then a single common entrance test followed by centralised counseling, or in other words, single window system of admission is necessary in order to achieve the twin objectives of transparency and merit. All institutions of the same or similar type, whether minority or non minority institutions will therefore be required to fill their seats through a single common entrance test followed by centralised counseling. Further the Apex Court in the same judgement has held that the State can regulate admission by providing a centralized and single window procedure which will ensure fair and merit based admissions and prevent maladministration. If the admission procedure followed by the private institutions fails to satisfy all or any of the triple tests prescribed by the Court, the admission procedure can be taken over by the State substituting its own procedure. It is also pointed out that minority institutions will lose their minority character if there is more than a "sprinkling" of students from non-minority communities in these institutions. The Apex Court has also clarified that the minority students should be from within the State. Taking this into consideration the Bill provides for sixty six percent of reservation in minority institutions for students from that community within the State. Whereas the population of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes exceeds fifty percent of the total population in the State. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indirasawhany Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1993 SC 477 has held that the reservations made for all categories shall not exceed fifty percent. Keeping this in mind the State Government has issued orders providing reservation for the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes to the extent of fifty percent under article 15(4) of the Constitution. Article 15 (5) of the Constitution (as inserted by the Constitution (Ninety-third Amendment) Act, 2005 provided for making any special provision by law by the State Government for advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizen or for the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes in relation to admission to education institution including private educational institutions whether aided or unaided, other than minority educational institutions notwithstanding anything contained in article 15 and sub-clause (g) of article 19 of the Constitution. Based on the above policy it is considered necessary to provide for reservation for the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes who are socially and educationally backward to the extent of fifty percent in Government, aided and unaided non-minority professional educational institutions. Hence the Bill. [L.A. Bill No. 1 of 2006] II Amending Act 39 of 2015.- It is considered necessary to amend the Karnataka Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Determination of Fee) Act, 2006, to provide for,- (1) a legal frame work which is acceptable by majority of the Professional Educational Institutions and to empower the state Government to enter into consensual agreement with association of non-minority or minority private unaided professional educational institutions; to protect the interest of merit students of the State and the institutions through consensual agreement by providing a quota of Government seats in Private Educational Institutions to be filled by the Common Entrance Test Committee constituted by the State; and to see that no student selected through Common Entrance Test Committee is over charged or the interest of the Karnataka 3 Student is protected by providing concessions and scholarship while entering into consensual agreement with private educational institutions; (2) to save the action taken by the Government in entering in to consensual agreement with the Association of private professional educational institutions and notifications issued and consequential action taken by the State Government in this regard for the Academic year 2015-16; (3) guidelines to the Fee Regulatory Committee to fix the fee appropriately at affordable rate as mandated by the Supreme Court, so that viability of situation is maintained and no student is over charged; and (4) certain consequential amendments are also made. Hence, the Bill. [L.A. Bill No.22 of 2015, File No. Samvyashae 28 Shasana 2015] [entry 25 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India.] III Amending Act 22 of 2017.-It is considered necessary to amend the Karnataka Professional Education (Regulation of Admissions, Determination of fee) Act, 2006, (Karnataka Act 8 of 2006) to provide for,- (a) conduct of Common Entrance Test by the State Government; (b) in case the Government of India or its agency conducts Common Entrance Test, ranking of the candidates shall be obtained from such Common Entrance Test; (c) fill up of seats through Common Entrance Test Committee or Government of India or its agency in deemed Universities also; (d) if Private Educational Institutions agrees to consensual agreement with the Government then, the conduct of Common Entrance Test shall be in accordance with such agreement; (e) framing of rules by the State Government for conduct centralised counseling by it or by such agency, in such manner as may be prescribed; (f) inclusion of private universities in the definition of “Professional Educational Institutions”; and (g) other consequential amendments also. Hence the Bill. [L.A. Bill No.14 of 2017, File No. Samvyashae 15 Shasana 2017] [entry 25 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India.] 4 Karnataka Act No. 8 of 2006 (First published in the Karnataka Gazette Extra-ordinary on the twenty fifth day of April, 2006) THE KARNATAKA PROFESSIONAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS (REGULATION OF ADMISSION AND DETERMINATION OF FEE) ACT, 2006 (As Amended by Karnataka Act 39 of 2015 and 22 of 2017 ) (Received the assent of the Governor on the twenty fourth day of April, 2006) An Act to provide for regulation of admission and determination of fee in professional educational institutions in the State of Karnataka and to provide for reservation of seats to persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes in the seats in professional educational institutions. Whereas the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgement in Islamic Academy of Education and others Vs State of Karnataka, reported in (2003) 6 SCC 697, sought to regulate admissions to professional courses through two committees, one for overseeing admissions and the other for approving the fee structure in professional educational institutions, pending enactment of appropriate lay by the Parliament. And whereas the Supreme Court in P.A. Inamdar and Others Vs State of Maharashtra reported in (2005) 6 SCC 537 has held that where there is more than one minority or non minority institution or similarly situated institution in the State imparting education in any one discipline then a single common entrance test followed by centralised counseling, or in other words, single window system of admission is necessary in order to achieve the twin objectives of transparency and merit. All institutions of the same or similar type, whether minority or non minority institutions will therefore be required to fill their seats through a single common entrance test followed by centralised counseling. Further the Apex Court in the same judgement has held that the State can regulate admission by providing a centralized and single window procedure which will ensure fair and merit based admissions and prevent maladministration. If the admission procedure followed by the private institutions fails to satisfy all or any of the triple tests prescribed by the Court, the admission procedure can be taken over by the State substituting its own procedure. And whereas, in the Constitution (Ninety-third Amendment) Act, 2005, a provision has been made under article 15(5) as follows:- "(5) Nothing in this article or in sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of article 19 shall prevent the State from making any special provision, by law, for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes in so far as such special provisions relate to their admission to educational institutions including private educational institutions, whether aided or unaided by the State, other than the minority educational institutions referred to in clause (1) of article 30." In order to achieve the above object and for the purposes hereinafter appearing it is considered necessary and expedient to provide for the following: Be it enacted by the Karnataka State Legislature in the fifty-seventh year of the Republic of India, as follows:-