C. Srinivasulu Reddy and Others vs Sri Venkateswara University and Others

Eswara Prasad, J.—The petitioners seek admission into B.Tech. Degree Course in the First Respondent-Sri Venkateswara University, College of Engineering, Tirupathi (for short, ''the University7), and pray for a Writ declaring the resolution No. 24(4) dated 14-7-1991 of the Board of Management of the University, in so far as it has not restored with effect from the academic year 1991-92 admissions under ''staff-children-quota'' in B.Tech., Degree Course, as illegal and void and for issuance of a consequential direction to the University to extend the said benefit to B.Tech., Degree Course, as well.

The petitioners are all the children of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the University. The University sanctioned twelve additional seats for B.Tech. Degree Course for the benefit of the children of the University staff. Those seats were being filled up from among the staff-children, according to merit and ranking secured in EAMCET examination.

For the academic year 1991-92, the Board of Management of the University passed the impugned resolution, resolving that admission under staff children quota in all Courses other than B.Tech., Degree Course offered in the University College of Engineering be restored with effect from the academic year 1991-92, thereby, the Board excluded staff children quota in B.Tech., Degree course alone. The petitioners challenge the said exclusion as arbitrary and unjust and violative of Articles 14 16 and 19(1)(g) and 300A as well as 21 of the Constitution of India. The undertaking given by the Office-bearers of the Employees'' Associations, not to seek for the extension of the facility of extra seats from the academic year 1990-91 onwards, was obtained under duress and compulsion without being supported by the resolution of the General Body of the employees'' Associations and therefore, it has no legal effect. The University being an autonomous body, Cannot discriminate against the candidates seeking admission into B.Tech., Degree Course, having decided and passed a resolution to restore the benefit of extra seats to the employees of the University in all Courses. The petitioners further contend that the additional seats have been created in M.Tech., and other Courses for the year 1991-92, except in B.Tech. The petitioners further contend that the said benefit was extended in B.Tech., Courses in the Andhra University, as well as Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, and there is no reason why such facility should be excluded for the staff-children of the University in B.Tech. Course.

In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the University, it is admitted that earlier, seats were being reserved for the children of its employees in M.Tech., M.Sc., MCA and B.Tech. degree courses, but not in Ph.D., and M.Phil., Degree Courses. Till the academic year 1990-91 in each branch of six Engineering Courses of B.Tech., one seat was reserved for the children of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the employees of the University and those seats were over and above the sanctioned strength and they were being filled up according to merit and ranking under each category of the children of the employees in EAMCET examination. Such a practice was discontinued from the academic year 1991-92 in view of the orders of the State Government issued in its letter No. 172/UE.I/91-1 Education, dated 25-2-91. Admissions to B.Tech. Degree Course in all Universities are made in accordance with A.P. Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission into Under-Graduate Professional Courses through Common Entrance Test) Rules, 1989 made in G.O.Ms.No. 62 Education (Rules) dated 10-2-89. Rule 9 specifies the categories for which reservations of seats are permissible in B.Tech., Degree Course and no reservation was made for the children of the employees. The Government brought to the notice of the University, that the contravention of the provisions of the Act and the Rules would involve conviction and punishment with imprisonment and the University was asked to refrain from making admissions against the category ''children of employees quota''.

It was further stated in the counter of the respondents 1 and 2 that the Executive Council of the University had earlier passed a resolution on 26-3-89 to request the third respondent to restore the facility of reservation of seats for the children of the employees of the University and the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam. After repeated representations by the authorities of the University, as well as the Employees'' Associations, the Government permitted by its letter dated 22-5-91 admission of children of the employees of the University as well as TTD in B.Tech., Degree Course during the academic year 1990-91 only, laying down a condition that no such concession should be asked for in future. The TTD has no specific organization of employees for giving an undertaking as required. The Employees Associations gave undertakings as required by the Government. The B.Tech., Degree Course was excluded from the reservations made for the children of the employees in the resolution of the Board dated 14-7-91. So far as the reservations in Post-Graduate Courses are concerned, the Universities are autonomous, and there is no question of comparison of B.Tech. Degree Courses with M.Tech. The University admits that prohibiting reservations for the children of the employees in respect of B.Tech. Degree Courses is discriminatory, but expresses its helplessness in view of the direction of the Government. The request of the petitioners could not be complied with, unless and until the State Government grants permission therefor.

In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Government, the power of the Universities to create seats for the benefit of the children of its employees, is denied. In the absence of a statutory provision of reservations made under Act 5 of 1983, no such seats can be reserved, nor can the University create extra seats. The Government made it clear that there should be no such reservation subsequent to 1990-91 and the concession was available only for the year 1990-91. It is further submitted in the counter that the decisions of this Court would show that no such reservations, or the creation of supernumerary seats, could be made by the University.

Sri Manohar, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are not asking for any seats to be reserved in favour of the children of the employees of the University. He complains against the discrimination shown to the aspirants into B.Tech. Degree Course alone while such provision is made with regard to M.Tech., and other P.G. Courses. He further submits that the decision in Smt. A. Vijaya Gavind v. The Registrar, Osmania University 1987 (2) ALT 283. on which the Government renes is not applicable to the case on hand. He contends that the University receives funds from T.T. Devasthanams apart from the funds provided by the Government and is entitled to create extra seats and allot them to the children of the employees of the University, as well as the employees of TTD based on merit-.

In Smt. A. Vijaya Gmrind''s case (1 supra) the Division Bench held that no reservations can be made in favour of the children of the employees of the University which is totally funded by the Government. It observed:

"From the State exchequer funds are received by the University and, therefore, it is not open to the University to create a special category of seats intended exclusively for its employees and their dependents."

It is not disputed by the University or the Government that the University receives funds from the T.T.Devasthanams. Perhaps it is the only University which receives funds from Agencies other than the Government. The Division Bench in the aforesaid case was dealing with Osmania University which receives funds only from the Government. Inasmuch, Sri Venkateswara University receives funds from T.T.Devasthanams, the decision in Smt. A. Vijaya Goirind''s case (1 supra) cannot be construed as restricting the right of the University to provide extra seats to the children of its employees or to the children of the TTD employees.

In S. Srinivasa Jaideep v. Registrar, Andhra University 1985 (2) APLJ 211. which was approved by the Division Bench in Smt. A. Vijaya Govind''s case (1 supra) the learned Judge was dealing with Andhra University which is also totally financed by the Government.

In Kumari Chitra Ghosh and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, it was held that if the sources are properly classified, it is not for the court to interfere with the manner and method of making the classification and, the Central Government which bears the financial burden of running the medical colleges, cannot be denied the right to decide from what sources the admission will be made. Applying the said principle, the right of the University which receives a part of the funds from TTD, to increase the number of seats for the purpose of providing them to the children of the employees of the University as well as TTD, cannot be denied by the Government.

The provision making reservations to children of political sufferers was held to be not unconstitutional as the children of such political sufferers are distinguishable from the rest, as held in D.N. Chanchala v. State of Mysore AIR 1970 SC 1762. It was held therein:

"Once the power to lay down classifications or categories of persons from whom admission is to be given is granted, the only question which would remain for consideration would be whether such categorisation has an intelligible criteria and whether it has a reasonable relation with the object for which the rules for admission are made."

Sri P.Ramachandra Reddy, appearing for the University submitted that allowing reservations for the children of the staff working in the Government, non-Government, and private institutions in respect of admissions to B.Ed., Degree Courses and prohibiting reservations for the children of the employees of the University in respect of B.Tech., Degree Course, appears to be discriminatory. He further stated that the State Government has not laid down uniform rules of reservations for all the courses for which admissions are made through common entrance test. While the Government gave instructions to the University not to make reservations for the children of the University employees in B.Tech,, Degree Course, the Government in Rule 10(4) of A.P. Colleges of Education (Regulation of admission into B.Ed., Course through Common Entrance Test) Rules, 1989, laid down in G.O.Ms. No. 154 dated 27-4-89 that ten seats in each Government Comprehensive College of Education/Govt. College of Education shall be reserved for Section Officers and Asst. Section Officers, working in the Education Department of A.P. Secretariat as permitted by the Government and the ministerial staff working in the Offices of the various Directorates and in the Local Bodies. The contention of the learned Counsel that the action of the Government is discriminatory is justified. There are absolutely no grounds for the Government in discriminating the children of the employees of the University seeking admission into B.Tech., Degree Course alone, while providing such facility for the children of their own employees in other, disciplines. It should be left open to the University to create seats over and above the seats, by utilising the funds provided by TTD. But for the fact that there was restriction by the Government, the University is inclined to create extra seats for the said purpose and there is no reason as to why the University should be prevented from doing so.

The learned Government Pleader relied on State of Maharashtra Vs. Minoo Noazer Kavarana and Others, . and contended that the High Court cannot direct creation of additional seats. It should be noted that the University is an autonomous body and is only restricted by the provisions of A.P.Universities Act, 1991, and the relevant provisions of the Constitution of India. The financial control exercised by the Government will not cover the funds granted by TTD. As observed earlier, the University is inclined to create extra seats and this is not a case where the Court is inclined to direct the University to create extra seats. The above decision has no application to the facts of the present case.

Section 25 of the A.P. Universities Act, 1991 empowers the Academic Senate to provide instruction and training in such branches of learning as it thinks fit. Under Clause (i) of sub-section (2), the Academic Senate has the power to make regulations regarding admission of students to the University. As there is no Academic Senate, the Academic Council exercises the said power, according to Sri P.Ramachandra Reddy. It is open to the Academic Council to create extra seats in B.Teeh. Degree Course for the purpose of providing seats to the children of its employees with the funds provided by TTD. In so providing seats, the University has to strictly apply the merit basis in selecting the candidates for admission, keeping in view Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the reservation for S.C, S.T., and B.Cs.

The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the Resolution No. 24(4) dated 14-7-91 of the Board of Management of Sri Venkateswara University, in so far as it has not restored with effect from academic year 1991-92, admissions under ''staff children quota'' in B.Tech., Degree Course, offered by the University College of Engineering, Tirupathi, is declared as illegal and void and it will be open to the University to extend the same benefit to B.Tech., Degree Course for 1991-92 as well. No order as to costs. Advocate''s fee Rs. 350/-.