AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Subhashan Reddy, J.
1.This writ appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 10607/ 1990 involving interpretation of the rules framed by the University of Health Sciences pertaining to the reservations for admission of the students into M.B.B.S. I Year. The University of Health Sciences has filed this appeal aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single Judge allowing the writ petition acceding to the prayer sought for by the 1st respondent i.e. the writ petitioner for admission into MBBS course in the reserved category for children of defence personnel (children of armed personnel i.e. children of ex-servicemen and defence personnel including the children of Border Security Force and Central Reserve Police residing in Andhra Pradesh). The 1st respondent is referred to as the petitioner and the appellant as the University.
The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Castes. She appeared for EAMCET (Engineering, Agricultural and Medical Common Entrance Test) held in May, 1990. The rank secured by her was 11374. Her father was working as Commandant in the Border Security Force. Even though, she sought for the seat in the reserved category for Scheduled Caste, in order of merit in that category, she could not secure a seat. When she tried for a seat in the category reserved for children of defence personnel, she was denied admission by the University basing on Rule 7-E of the University Rules. The stand of the University "was that inasmuch as the petitioner was claiming under the quota of defence personnel, the special concession of requirement of qualifying marks was not available in so far as the defence quota was concerned. The learned Judge rejected the said concession holding that the same, if read in conjunction with the rules framed by the Government in G.O.Ms. No. 62, dated 10-2-1989, has to be interpreted that candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes do not have to obtain any qualifying mark for seeking seats in any of the categories including that of defence personnel. Such interpretation placed by the learned Judge is assailed in this writ appeal before us.
The Government has framed rules regarding admission of the students into the 1st year courses of Engineering, Agriculture and Medical through Common Entrance Test in G.O.Ms. No. 62, Education (Rules), dated 10th February, 1989 in exercise of the powers conferred under S. 3 read with S. 15 of A.P. Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fees) Act, 1983 (A.P. Act No. 5 of 1983). These rules are titled." The Andhra Pradesh Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions into Undergraduate, Professional Courses through Common Entrance Test) Rules, 1989. Rule 2(b) defines common entrance test as the examination conducted for assigning merit ranking to students, which will be the basis for admission of the students into the 1st year of various undergraduate courses in various professional educational institutions in the State.. Rule 2(k) defines qualified candidate as the candidate who has appeared for the common entrance test and has been assigned ranking in the common merit list. Rule 2(n) defines qualifying examination as the examination of the minimum qualification prescribed appearing/passing of which entitles one to seek admission into relevant professional courses. Rule 4 prescribes the eligibility criterion for admission. The prerequisites for admission into the above categories of professional courses are (1) age limit, (2) nationality and domicile and educational qualifications. In so far as the nationality and domicile is concerned, there is a common requirement, in that, one should be an Indian national and should satisfy the local/non-local status as laid down under A.P. Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission) Order, 1974 as amended in G.O.P. No. 646, Education Department, dated 10-7-1979. This requirement of nationality and domicile is common to all the courses, be it Engineering, Agriculture or Medical. In so far as the age-limit is concerned, the minimum is 16 years in Engineering and Agricultural Course while there is no maximum. In so far as medical courses are concerned, the minimum is 17 years and the maximum is 22 years. If a candidate holds B.Sc. degree or M.Sc. degree, the maximum age-limit is .extended by 3 years. For Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, the maximum age-limit is extended by 3 years. It is pertinent to note that this eligibility criteria for admission do not take in the qualifying mark or other aspects relating to admission. Only three requirements as mentioned above are mentioned as eligibility criteria and that too, not precluding the respective Universities from making their own rules of admission in addition to the instant rules. As such, it is evident that the Universities are made free to frame their own rules of admission, but necessarily by following the above three requirements regarding nationality and domicile, age-limit and educational qualifications prescribed by the Government and no University can violate the above eligibility criteria prescribed by the Government under Rule 4 even though they may frame additional rules by following the above eligibility criteria under Rule 4.
Rule 5 provides guidelines for the common entrance test, as also the details of the courses the University offering and the subjects to be chosen for appearing the entrance test seeking admission into the courses and a table consisting of 3 columns, namely, (1) courses for which admissions sought; (2) Universities offering the courses; and (3) subjects to be chosen for the entrance test, has been specified. It also provides the qualifying mark and the manner of assigning ''ranking. Pertinent in this regard is sub-rule (9) and (12) of Rule 5. Rule 5(9) reads:
"The qualifying marks in the entrance test for general category of candidates shall be 30% of the aggregate marks in the three subjects.. However, there shall be no minimum qualifying marks in respect of the can- didates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes."
Rule 5(12) reads:
"Mere appearance at the entrance test does not entitle a candidate to be considered for admission into a course automatically unless the candidate:
(a) applies to the University concerned/ convenes as the case may be; and
(b) satisfies all the conditions of admission stipulated by the concerned University/Government."
Rule 6 deals with preparation of merit list and assigning ranking which reads:
"The candidates who have secured qualifying marks in the entrance test and the candidates belonging to the SC and ST communities to whom no qualifying marks having been prescribed, shall be assigned the ranking in the order of merit on the basis of aggregate marks obtained in all the 3 relevant subjects out of the four subjects, namely, mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology in which appeared."
Rule 7 prescribes procedure for admission into Government colleges, Campus, Constituent colleges of Universities and Regional Engineering Colleges. Rule 8 prescribes the procedure for admission into private institutions.
Rule 9 deals with rules of reservation for admission. While sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 deals with region-wise reservation which consists of local area, local candidate and non-local candidate, sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 deals with reservation of seats for ST/ST and BC communities. It prescribes a quota of 15% for SC, 6% for ST and 25% for BCs, further specifying the specific percentage of seats in Groups A, B, C and D categories of Backward Classes, totalling to the outer limit of 25%. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 9 deals with reservation of seats for women. Women are reserved with 30% of seats and computing that 30%, the candidates selected in open, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes and army quota have to be considered. The said sub-rule makes it clear that, if only, the women candidates fall short of 30%, then for making up deficiency and in order of merit, they will be selected from the categories mentioned above. It also says, when the number of women candidates fall short of this per cent age, it would be made up by replacing the last selected male candidates by the women candidates in that category. In the absence of suitable women candidates, the seat shall be filled in with men candidates. The sub-rule (4) of Rule 9 deals with other categories of reservation which reads:
"Seats shall also be reserved in each institution in respect of the following categories to the extent indicated against each of them. If the suitable candidates are not available- in any category, they shall be filled in with the candidates in open competition - one per cent for the physically handicapped, one per cent for the National Cadet Core, one per cent 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 residing in Andhra Pradesh.".
We are now concerned with the reservation of 4% for the children of Ex-servicemen and Defence Personnel including the Children of Border Security Force and the General Reserve Police residing in Andhra Pradesh. This is a class by itself and is in no way related to the social backwardness or economic backwardness which are the criteria for the reservations for the Scheduled Castes, and Scheduled Tribes and also Backward Classes. The object of reservation is to facilitate the children of armed personnel as a whole, not permitting a re-classification as Scheduled Caste armed personnel, Scheduled Tribe armed personnel or Backward Classes armed personnel. Irrespective of the caste, creed, region, religion and regardless of any other consideration, the primary requirement is that a student seeking under armed personnel quota should be a child of such armed officer in order of preference. The order of preference is indicated in Rule 8-E itself which reads:
"1. Param Vir Chakra
Ashok Chakra
Mahavir Chakra
Kirti Chakra
Vir Chakra
Shaurya Chakra
Sena, Nausena, Vayu Sena Medals
Mention in dispatches
Merit order of Gallantry Award for B.S.F. and CRPF personnel will be as per rules in force."
Rule 8-E of the University Rules is explicit and says "Admission under Army quota will be made from among eligible candidates qualified at EAMCET-90 in order of preference." The order of preference is already mentioned supra. The words "among eligible candidates qualified at EAMCET-90" are crucial and fall for interpretation.
Rule 5(9) of the Government rules prescribes qualifying marks in the entrance test for general category of candidates at 30% of the aggregate marks in the 3 subjects. It further reads " However , there shall be no minimum qualifying marks in respect of candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes." But, this exception has to be read only in the context of exception contemplated under Art, 15(4) of Indian Constitution. This exception cannot be stretched beyond the object and intendment of Art. 15(4). There is no bar for Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe candidates for being considered in open category and if that be the case, this exception is not applicable and they have to compete with other equals under Art. 15(1) of the Constitution of India. The reservation was carved out to them under Art. 15(4) enabling such persons who are not that meritorious on par with open category students or the other meritorious students among Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes by prescribing no qualifying mark and such a benefit which has got nexus with the benefit conferred under Art. 15(4) cannot be stretched further to other categories including that of Army personnel quota. As such, obtaining a qualifying mark of 30% of the . aggregate marks in three subjects is a necessity for being considered for admission. Further, neither exemption is available to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from obtaining the said qualifying marks for consideration under Army Personnel quota and even for such candidates who obtained the qualifying marks, merit is not the criterion for such selection as once the minimum qualifying mark is obtained, the next consideration shall be only the order of preference. To say concisely, no benefit can be given to a candidate merely because he is a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe from obtaining the qualifying marks and no benefit is also given to the candidates obtaining high percentage of marks, if they do not fall within the preferential order. If a candidate secures 85% and he is a child of 3rd-preference officer under Rule 8-E of the University Rules, he cannot have a march over another candidate who . secured only 30% of the qualifying mark, but who is a child of an officer coming in the 1st preference. The nexus for the object to be achieved or not requiring a minimum qualifying mark which is applicable to the reservations carved out under Art. 15(4) cannot be stretched further to other categories and more so, for armed personnel quota. Further, Rule 5(12)(b) of Government Rules enables the University to impose conditions and the same reads:
"Satisfies all the conditions of admission stipulated by the concerned University/Government."
As such, we see no conflict in between the Government Rules and the University Rules and the University also being a State under Art. 12 of the Constitution of India, is empowered to frame its rules and there is nothing wrong in the University prescribing a condition of a qualifying mark for being eligible for consideration under Armed Personnel quota irrespective of the caste, creed or religion which conforms to the equality clause enshrined under Art. 15(1) of Indian Constitution. The Courts approach should be always to uphold an interpretation which favours equality clause and not otherwise. In view of this same, we are unable to subscribe our view to the judgment of the learned single Judge regarding interpretation of Rule 5(9) of Government Rules vis-a-vis Rule 8-E of the University Rules. However, as the 1st respondent was admitted pursuant to the direction of the learned single Judge and underwent course and is in final year of MBBS, we are not upsetting her admission and she shall be permitted to continue and complete her studies in MBBS course.
The writ appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
Lingaraja Rath, J.,
While completely agreeing with the judgment prepared by my learned brother B. Subhashan Reddy, J., I wish to write a few lines in support of the conclusions reached.
Paragraph 8 of the Instruction Booklet for EAMCET-93 is in these words:
"8. Qualifying mark in EAMCET-93: The qualifying percentage of marks in the En-trance Test for all candidates is 30% of the aggregate marks of 150 in the three subjects Biology, Physics and Chemistry.
However, candidates belonging to S.C./ S.T. category will be considered for the purpose of ranking on the basis of their-performance in the Entrance Test without insisting on the qualifying marks. But their admission will be limited to the extent of the seats reserved for such S.C./S.T. candidates (vide G.O.Ms. No. 179 LEN and TE, dated 6-6-1986)."
As the very overriding provision in the nature of a proviso shows, the exemption provided for SC/ST candidates for their being eligible to be considered as qualified candidates without securing the qualifying marks is limited to the number of seats reserved for them as SC/ST candidates. As specific provision is made as to when the exemption shall become operative and against which seats, it necessarily excludes the exemption being made applicable also to the reservations of a different category as otherwise the provisions of specific exemption in the SC/ ST seats would become nugatory and meaningless. It is apparent that in issuing the instructions the obvious intention was that when preferential consideration is claimed as SC/ST candidates, the basis of the preference is confined only in the category to which the preference relates but not to all other categories. Otherwise, adopting the reverse approach, would lead to the fallacy that even in the open category, any SC/ ST candidate would be able to claim to be considered as qualified even without securing the minimum qualifying marks. The petition hence has no merit and is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.