AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.N. Rao, J. 1. The two petitioners herein appeared for the Common Entrance Examination for admission into First. Year B.E., Degree Course for the Academic year 1989-90. The first petitioner secured rank No. 64 and the second petitioner rank No. 1769. The fathers of the petitioners are Ex-army personnel. Under R. 9 of the Rules of Admissions, 85% of the seats in each course shall be reserved for the local candidates and 15% shall be left over for open competition as specified in the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulations and Admission) Order, 1974. One of the categories entitled for reservations is the children of Ex-Servicemen and defence personnel. Sub-rule (4) of R. 9 insofar as it is relevant reads thus:
"Seats shall also be reserved in each institution in respect of the following categories to the extent indicated against each of them. However, if suitable candidates are not available in any category they shall be filled in with the candidates in open Competition.
1% for physically handicapped. 1% for National Cadet Corps, 1% for Games and Sports, 4% for the Children of Ex-Servicemen and defence personnel including the children of Border Security Force and the Central Reserve Police Force residing in Andhra Pradesh.
The fathers of the two petitioners are Ex-Servicemen residing in the State of Andhra Pradesh and about this there is no dispute. Under sub-rule (2) of R. 7, candidates desirous of getting their names considered both as local and non-local candidates shall make application separately to the University, "to which he is a local candidate and the other universities to which he is a non-local candidate, respectively." The petitioners applied to the S.V. University seeking admission under the reserved category, viz., children of Ex-Servicemen. By a communication dated 5-9-1989, they were asked to appear for an interview on 14-9-1989. On 14-9-89 three candidates i.e., one Samulla and the two petitioners herein, appeared for the interview. The rank of the said Samulla is 2243 and he was selected against the Ex-Servicemen quota on the ground that he is a local candidate and his father died in harness. The petitioners were not given admission although they secured very high ranks among the children of Ex-Servicemen, for the reason that they do not belong to the S.V. University area. On 23-9-1989,11 candidates were called for an interview, but only eight appeared, and out of that five had been selected. The total number of seats reserved in the S.V. University for children of Ex-Servicemen is six and all the six seats had been thus filled. The petitioners have, therefore, filed this writ petition seeking a Mandamus directing the first respondent Principal, College of Engineering, Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupathi, to admit the first petitioner into 1st Year B. Tech Degree Course in Computer Science and Engineering and the second petitioner in Electronics and Communication Engineering for the academic year 1989-90. As the other five candidates, who, according to the petitioner, have secured lower ranks, will be affected in the event of writ being allowed, notices were issued to all the five candidates after they were impleaded as respondents 4 to 8. Although notices were served on them, none of them has entered appearance.
The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that 4% seats reserved in favour of the children of Ex-Servicemen shall not be counted against the reserved quota of 85% earmarked for local candidates; all the children of Ex-Servicemen residing in the State of Andhra Pradesh are entitled to be considered for admission in the order of merit confined to that particular University area as a condition precedent for admission is illegal and unconstitutional the only exception in this regard is the one provided in the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulations and Admission) Order, 1974 issued, in exercise of the power conferred by clauses of Art. 37 ID of the Constitution of India 1 and 2 (sic) by the President of India, contesting this sub mission, Sri Ramchandra Reddy, learned counsel for the first respondent-University maintains that 4% reservation is the outer limit and each University has power to reserve all the 4% of University area or the Children of Army personnel who are stationed in the University area.
As already stated supra, the rank secured by the first petitioner is 640 and the second petitioner is 1769. The following are the ranks secured by respondents 4 to 8:--
4th respondent-4677
5th respondent-6452
6th respondent-8771
7th respondent-11332
8th respondent-11710
It is very clear that respondents 4 to 8 secured lower ranks than the petitioners. The only ground on which respondents 4 to 8 are preferred is that they are the children of the Army personnel who are stationed in the University area. Para 44 of the prospectus issued by Sri Venkateswara University College of Engineering for the academic year 1989-90 says that six seats shall be reserved to the children of Ex-Servicemen, Armed personnel and C.R.P.F./B.S.F. personnel belonging to the S. V. University and the S.V. University areas of Andhra Pradesh State including those stationed in other States and Servicemen belonging to other States who are posted and stationed in the S-V. University and the S.V. University areas at the time of submission of applications. Appendix of the prospectus which deals with admission relating to the children of Ex-Servicemen, Armed personnel B.S.F./C.R.P.F. personnel by para V specifies that the children of the above said three categories belonging to S.V. University Areas and S.V. University area of Andhra Pradesh State who are posted and stationed in other State, seeking admission to the Course, shall, in support of their claim produce a ''Nativity Certificate'' signed by an officer of the Revenue Department not below the rank of Mandal Officer.
What is laid down in para 4-4 and para V of Appendix-C of the Prospectus are clearly repugnant to R. 9(4) of the Statutory rules issued by the State Government in G.O.Ms. No. 62 dated 10-2-89. 4% of the reservation is in favour of the children of Ex-Servicemen and Defence personnel residing in Andhra Pradesh. The rule does not limit the requirement as to residence to any particular University area for the purpose of eligibility under the reserved category. Residence in the State of Andhra Pradesh cannot be construed to be residence in a particular University area for the purpose of admission; such a construction will exclude candidates belonging to the other University areas from consideration. It was not the intention of the Government to confine reservation in favour of the children of Ex-Servicemen residing only in a particular University area. So far as reservation in favour of local candidates is concerned, as already noticed, 85% of seats are reserved in their favour by R. 9 who is a local candidate as specified in para 4 of the A.P. Educational Institutions (Regulations and Admission) Order, 1974. The same definition is incorporated in explanation II to Rule9(c) of the Statutory Rules. The University by insisting upon the requirement of ''Nativity Certificate'' issued by an officer of Revenue Department in respect of children of Ex-Servicemen or children of officers posted in the University areas, expanded the scope of local candidates contrary to the definition contained in the Presidential order which was adopted by the Statutory Rules. By confining the Army quota reservation to the children of Army personnel belonging to University area, the 1st respondent has created one more category of local candidates whose entitlement is solely depending upon the production of ''Nativity Certificate''. This amounts to discriminating the petitioners on the ground of place of birth and preferring respondents 4 to 8 on a legally impermissible ground, and the impugned action is thus clearly unconstitutional being violative of Art. 15(1) of the Constitution of India. The requirement as to residence for the purpose of seeking employment or admission into educational institutions, so far as this State is concerned, is constitutionally protected by virtue of Art.371D(1) and (2) of the Constitution of India.
It must also be mentioned in this context that the scope of Statutory R. 9(4) of the Rules issued in G.O.Ms. No. 62 dated 10-2-1989 has been correctly understood by all the other Universities in the Stale. The Andhra University prospectus, by para4, clearly lays down that the children of Ex-Servicemen and Servicemen belonging to Andhra Pradesh State -- will be considered under this category. As regards admission of candidates into Private Engineering Colleges, the relevant rules issued by the State Government lay down the requirement of residence in the State of Andhra Pradesh as a necessary pre-condition for eligibility under the Defence Service quota. The Osmania University and Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University also insist upon the requirement of residence in the State of Andhra Pradesh so far as the children of Ex-Servicemen and Defence personnel are concerned, but not residence in particular University area. Only in the case of S.V. University, the scope of the Rule has been misunderstood and because of the misinterpretation of the rule, provisions were incorporated in the prospectus insisting upon the requirement of residence within the University area. The action of the University in insisting upon such a requirement contrary to what is laid down in the statutory rule is clearly illegal.
For these reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The first respondent is directed to admit both the petitioners herein into first year of B. E., Degree Course -- 1st petitioner in Computer Science and Engineering and the second petitioner in Electronics and Communication Engineering if the rank secured by them entitles them for such an admission into those disciplines. The injustice suffered by the petitioners was solely due to the mistake committed in misinterpreting the scope of R.9(4) the State Government also had not taken immediate steps to rectify the said mistake. In the circumstances, the State Government shall not object to the University increasing the number of seats by two for the academic year 1989-90. So far as the shortage of attendance in the case of the two petitioners is concerned the same would not stand in their way of being admitted into first year B.E., Degree Course. No order as to costs. Advocate''s fee Rs.350/-.
Petition allowed.