- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5716 WP No. 100576 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO.100576 OF 2025 (EDN-AD) BETWEEN: VIDHYA BHARATHI FOUNDATION A REGISTERED TRUST PLOT NO.567/2B, AKSHAY COLONY, UNKAL VILLAGE, VIDHYANAGAR, HUBLI, DHARWAD DISTRICT-580021 REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR SRI RAJAPEERSAB MALLAPUR S/O. BASUSAB, AGED 53 YEARS. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. POOJA RAJSHEKAR SAVADATTI, ADVOCATE) AND: KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY, PAVATE NAGAR, DHARWAD-580003, KARNATAKA STATE REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI RAMACHANDRA A.MALI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO; a) ISSUE AN ORDER/ DIRECTION/WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO STRICTLY ADHERE TO THE NUMBER OF INTAKE OF STUDENTS MENTIONED IN THE NCTE RECOGNITION ORDER DATED 02/05/2016 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE B BEARING NO.f.SRO/SRCAPP14492/B.Ed/KA/2016/84753 AND THEREBY TO ISSUE RECTIFIED AFFILIATION ORDER, PERMITTING THE PETITIONER TO ADMIT 50 STUDENTS OF TWO UNITS, INSTEAD OF ONE UNIT OF 50 STUDENTS, FOR THE ACADEMIC Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5716 WP No. 100576 of 2025 YEAR 2024-2025 ONWARDS, WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE AFFILIATION ORDER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 04/10/2024 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE E BEARING NO.d.c.c/sanyojane/2024-25/162/493 OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE. b) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 07/12/2024 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F AND ISSUE AFFILIATION ORDER TO ADMIT 100 STUDENTS ANNUALLY, INSTEAD OF 50 STUDENTS, c) PASS ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE INCLUDING AN ORDER TOWARDS COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioner being an educational institution imparting higher education, approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondent- Karnataka University, to strictly adhere to the number of intake of students mentioned in the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) recognition order dated 20.05.2016, produced as per Annexure-B, and thereby to issue rectified affiliation order, permitting the petitioner to admit 50 students of two units each, instead of one unit of 50 students for the academic year 2024-25 onwards, without reference to the affiliation order issued by the respondent-University dated - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5716 WP No. 100576 of 2025 04.10.2024, produced as per Annexure-E; or in the alternate, the petitioner sought for issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing respondent-University to consider the representation dated 07.12.2024, produced as per Annexure-F and issue affiliation order to admit 100 students annually instead of 50 students. 2. Heard Smt.Pooja Rajshekar Savadatti, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Ramachandra A. Mali, learned counsel for respondent. Perused the materials on record. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the petitioner-institution has huge infrastructure to impart higher education which would satisfy the requirement of NCTE. Therefore, NCTE, which is the authority to grant recognition to evaluate and conduct teachers’ education course, recommend admission of two units of 50 students each, totaling to 100 students per annum, vide order dated 02.05.2016. When the order of the NCTE permits the petitioner to admit 100 students from 2016 every year, and when the Government of Karnataka was pleased to issue ‘No Objection Certificate’ for starting B.Ed course as per Annexure-C, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5716 WP No. 100576 of 2025 respondent-University had no justification to reject the prayer of the petitioner-institution for additional intake of 50 students for the academic year 2024-25. 4. It is contended that the Local Enquiry Committee (‘LEC’, for short) appointed by the University, visited the petitioner-institution, and satisfied with all the requirements as found in their report. In spite of that, the respondent-University refused to permit the petitioner-institution to admit 100 students for the academic year 2024-25, which is not justifiable on any ground. The said act of the respondent-University is arbitrary and illegal. 5. Learned counsel also submitted that, the last date for admitting students through online quota, which is extended from time-to-time will expire tomorrow i.e. 28.03.2025. Therefore, she prays for allowing the petition in the interest of justice. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- University, opposing the petition submitted that the petitioner- institution was recognized by the NCTE to conduct B.Ed course, which is of two years duration, with the annual intake of 100 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5716 WP No. 100576 of 2025 students during 2016. Pursuant to the recommendation being approved by the State Government, the respondent-University granted fresh evaluation to the petitioner-institution for the academic year 2016-17. But during 2017, the State Government has written a Letter to the University about registration of a case by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against the petitioner-institution, and directing not to renew the annual affiliation to the petitioner. It was the allegation against the petitioner-institution that it has provided bogus particulars, and has fabricated documents in seeking affiliation to commence B.Ed course. Therefore, from the year 2017-18, the affiliation of the petitioner-institution was not renewable till the academic year 2021-22. 7. Learned counsel contended that the report of the LEC has pointed out that the Committee had visited the petitioner- institution as prescribed by the norms, and recommended intake of only 50 students, as the institution scored only 38.65 out of 100, and it was much below the standard score of 40, which was required as per the norms. Therefore, the respondent-University has rejected the claim of the petitioner- institution for enhancing the number of admissions for the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5716 WP No. 100576 of 2025 academic year 2024-25 as per Annexure-R4 dated 29.11.2024, explaining in detail as to why such permission was rejected. It is also stated that, if the petitioner-institution improves its requirements, the request for enhancing the intake of students could be considered for the academic year 2025-26. 8. The said rejection of the prayer of the petitioner for additional intake was accepted by the petitioner-institution as per Form No.2 by writing a letter dated 01.01.2025 and requesting the respondent-University to consider additional intake of 50 students at least for the academic year 2025-26. Under such circumstances, the petitioner cannot maintain the petition. 9. Learned counsel also submits that as per the revised notification by the University, the last date for admission with fine was on 15.02.2025. As the admission process being completed long back, the petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, prays for dismissal of the petition. 10. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the LEC has visited petitioner-institution, and on such visit, it has recorded the weightage score of 38.65, the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5716 WP No. 100576 of 2025 respondent-University is entitled for granting affiliation by providing 5 points to the institution, which is not done for the reasons best known to it. 11. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, LEC has again visited the petitioner-institution during January- 2025-26, and was satisfied with the requirements that the average score was more than 68 points, which is sufficient to permit the petitioner-institution for additional intake. But the contention of the learned counsel for respondent is that, such visit by the LEC and evaluation of various infrastructure would be for the academic year 2025-26. Since the process for academic year 2024-25 had begun in the year 2024 itself, and even the revised last date for submission of the applications with penalty had lapsed long-back. Even though learned counsel for the petitioner disputed this fact and contended that the last date for submission of the application is on 28.03.2025, no materials are placed before this Court to support her contention. 12. The specific contention of the respondent as per Annexure-R4-letter dated 29.11.2024 is that, the respondent- - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5716 WP No. 100576 of 2025 University had written the letter notifying the petitioner- institution that, it has average score of only 37 points as per the report of the LEC. Whereas, the minimum required score was 45 points and therefore, the University rejected the prayer of the petitioner-institution for additional intake. It is stated that if the infrastructure and other requirements are improved, the prayer of the petitioner-institution for additional intake could be considered for the academic year 2025-26. 13. It is pertinent to note that, document No.2 produced by the learned counsel for the respondent-University dated 01.01.2025, is admittedly the letter written by the Members of the petitioner-institution addressed to the Vice-Chancellor of Respondent-University, admitting that the process for admission for academic year 2024-25 is almost at the last stage and therefore, requesting him to permit the petitioner- institution to admit at least one unit of students i.e. 50 students. It is also stated that, for the academic year 2025-26, the respondent-University may consider the request of the petitioner-institution to admit two units i.e. 100 students. 14. This document No.2 dated 01.01.2025 refers to the letter written by the respondent-University dated 29.11.2024. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5716 WP No. 100576 of 2025 When the petitioner-institution accepted the reason assigned by the respondent-University for rejection of prayer for additional intake of students, I do not find any merit in the contentions taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Even though it is contended that admission for academic year 2025-26 could be completed only tomorrow i.e. 28.03.2025, no materials are placed before this Court in support of the same. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-University has placed on record the revised date of schedule for getting students admitted. According to which, the last date for admission with payment of penalty was on 12.02.2025. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of any relief in this petition. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE MKM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 18