Telangana High Court
B Lakshma Reddy vs Secretary Higher Education And 3 Others on 7 August, 2024
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
W.P(PIL).No.200 OF 2017
ORDER:
(Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice J.Sreenivas Rao) Smt. B.Rachna Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
Sri Imran Khan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Sri Abdul Quddoos, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Brief facts of the case:
2. In this writ petition filed as Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner has sought declaration that G.O.Ms.No.13, Higher Education(TE/A2) Department, dated 14.08.2014, issued by the respondent No.1 which is an amendment to the Admission process through the Andhra Pradesh Unaided Non-Minority Professional Institutions (Regulation of Admissions into under-graduate and Pharm-D Professional Course) through Common Entrance Test Rules, 2011, is in violation of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.A. Inamdar and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra 2 and others 1 and also as illegal, arbitrary and violation of the principles of natural justice, the Right to Education Act and to consequently set-aside the G.O.Ms.No.13 of Higher Education(TE/A2) Department, dated 14.08.2014, of respondent No.1 as being excessive.
2.1. Facts giving rise to filing of this petition are that the Non- Minority Engineering Colleges under the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh itself were formed into the following two categories of seats for prospective allotment:
"I-Category-A: Consisting of 70% of the total permissible intake and the admission into this category is made based on EAMCET.
II-Category-B: Consisting of 30% of the total permissible intake. Admission into this category is to be made by the managements of respective unaided engineering colleges, under the supervision of Telangana State Council of Higher Education or TSCHE."
2.2. The Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.74, Higher Education (EC.2) Department, dated 28.07.2011, G.O.Ms.No.66, Higher Education (EC.2) Department, dated 03.09.2012 and G.O.Ms.No.13, Higher Education (TE/A2) Department, dated 1 (2005) 6 SCC 537 3 14.08.2014, stipulating clear and explicit guidelines, according to which, all category seats were required to be filled in admission process. G.O.Ms.No.74, Higher Education (EC.2) Department, dated 28.07.2011, clause 6(ii)(1) deals with the manner in which category-B seats are supposed to be filled including issuance of the notifications by respective colleges after EAMCET admission notification, the percentage of NRI seats that can be filled and the manner in which remaining seats ought to be filled according to merit. Pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.A. Inamdar (supra), the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.66, Higher Education (EC.2) Department, dated 03.09.2012, in the light of fixing a uniform fee for Category A & B seats from the Academic Year 2012-13 and to ensure fair, transparent and non-discriminatory approach to all the sections of the society by incorporating the below clause:
"6(ii)(2)(i)- the Competent Authority would facilitate the setting up of a web portal which will act as a "Single Window for Category b, seats for both the colleges and the students for filling up category B seats in the said portal.
(ii) Each college will be provided a unique ID and password to port its data relating to the category B seats in the said portal.
(iii) Subsequently, all colleges will be provided with a digital signature to ensure secure access of their operations.
(iv) The colleges shall port all the relevant data regarding the category "B" seats, branch wise as provided in the said web portal. 4
(v) Once the data is finally entered by the management no change shall be permitted.
(vi) The web portal shall provide the students, the facility for making online applications for Category B seats. A printable/recordable electronic acknowledgement shall be provided to the student on successful uploading of his online application.
This will dispense with the need for the student to physically visit each and every college besides ushering in transparency." 2.3. Petitioner further pleaded that G.O.Ms.No.13, Higher Education (TE/A2) Department, dated 14.08.2014, is the amendment carried out to clause (xvi) after the words "merit of the candidates" of G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 28.07.2011, which states as follows:
"The management of the college has an option to call upon the selected candidates to appear in person for interview to substantiate their credibility and financial capacity to its satisfaction."
2.4. The petitioner has further pleaded that the said amendment nullifies the entire fair and transparent process envisaged itself and is in violation of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.A. Inamdar (supra), which repeatedly talk about regulation and close supervision by competent authority. It is averred that G.O.Ms.No.13, makes credibility of candidates as assessed by the managements of respective colleges based on an interview. According to petitioner the aforesaid judgment and G.O.Ms.Nos.74 and 66 clearly stipulate transparent and merit based procedure for selection of candidates for B-Category seats. 5 G.O.Ms.No.13, at sub clause (vii) subverts this process of transparent, merit based admission and paves the way for selection basing on credibility and further the selection process stipulated in the impugned G.O., is random, arbitrary and unscientific.
2.5. Further Telangana State Council of Higher Education (TSCHE) has issued a press statement dated 26.05.2017, that they would conduct an online admission process for B-Category, for and beyond Academic Year 2017-18, but none of this was followed. It is averred that majority of the private unaided professional colleges are not following a fair and transparent procedure to fill up the B-category seats, as admission in most of the colleges have been completed even before the formal date of notification. Aggrieved by the above said G.O.Ms.No.13, dated 14.08.2014, the petitioner filed the present petition in the interest of public. 2.6. Respondent No.1 filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made by the petitioner inter alia contending that basing on the directions issued by the Division Bench in W.P.No.27777 of 2012 and batch, Government incorporated all the directions in G.O.Ms.No.66, Higher Education (EC.2) Department, dated 03.09.2012, through G.O.Ms.No.13, Higher Education (TE/A2) 6 Department, dated 14.08.2014, to enable the competent authority to ensure that the admissions are strictly on merit basis and satisfy the triple tests of being fair, transparent and non- exploitative admissions. Although the new procedure may delay the admission process and leave some Category-B seats vacant, the Court found no infringement on the rights of Professional Colleges or their autonomy in admissions, as protected under Articles 19(1)(g) and 30 of the Constitution of India. However, the Court upheld the Petitioners' contention against reducing the NRI quota from 15% to 5% as amended in G.O.Ms.No.66, dated 03.09.2012.
Contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner:
3. Smt. B.Rachana, learned senior counsel contended that the impugned G.O.Ms.No.13, Higher Education (TE/A2) Department, dated 14.08.2014, is in gross violation of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the very purpose of issuing G.O.Ms.No.66, dated 03.09.2012, pursuant to the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, is to ensure transparency, fairness and easy accessibility for the students and further contended that the amendment to clause (xvi) in G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 28.07.2011 allowing college management to call upon selected candidates for 7 an interview to verify their credibility and financial capacity, facilitate unfair practices.
3.1. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that the amendment would make it impossible to curb unfair practices of granting admission based on the paying capacity of candidates, thereby undermining the merit-based admission process.
Contentions of learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondent/s:
4. Learned Additional Advocate General contended that aggrieved by the amendments made to A.P.Unaided Non-Minority Professional Institutions (Regulation of Admissions into Undergraduate and Pharm-D (Doctor of Pharmacy) Professional Courses through Common Entrance Test Rules, 2011 and A.P. Unaided Minority Professional Institutional (Regulation of Admissions into Undergraduate and Pharm-D (Doctor of Pharmacy) Professional Courses through Common Entrance Test Rules, 2011 by G.OMs.Nos.66 and 67, Higher Education (EC.2) Department, dated 03.09.2012, Unaided Professional Educational Institutions both minority and non-minority filed W.P.Nos.27777 of 2012 and batch, seeking a declaration that the above said Rules, as amended in G.O.Ms.Nos.66 and 67, Higher Education (EC.2) Department, dated 03.09.2012, particularly Rule 6(ii), are 8 arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. The Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, after taking into consideration the Principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in P.A. Inamdar (supra), disposed of the above batch cases on 20.08.2013, upholding the above said G.Os., except declaring the portion of reducing percentage of NRI seats to 5% from 15% as illegal and restored the NRI quota and also issued directions for effective implementation of the amended Rule 6(ii). 4.1. He further contended that in pursuance of the directions issued by the Division Bench dated 20.08.2013, Government incorporated all the directions in G.O.Ms.No.66, dated 03.09.2012, through the impugned G.O.Ms.No.13, dated 14.08.2014, and the order passed by Division Bench has become final and the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable under law. Analysis of the Case:
5. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that questioning G.O.Ms.Nos.66 and 67, Higher Education (EC.2) Department, dated 03.09.2012 particularly Rule 6(ii), Andhra Pradesh unaided colleges both minority and non- minority institutions have filed W.P.No.27777 of 2012 and batch and the Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra 9 Pradesh, Hyderabad, vide order dated 20.08.2013, upheld said G.Os., except the portion of reducing the percentage of NRI seats from 15% to 5%, stating that the said reduction is unjustified, unfounded and contrary to the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in T.M.A.PAI Foundation Vs. State of Karnataka 2 and P.A.Inamdar (supra), and restored the NRI quota to 15% and issued the directions for effective implementation of amended Rule 6 (ii), which reads as follows:
"(i) Apart from making the applications online through the common web portal, the candidates shall be given an option to submit their applications in person at the college of their choice; however one select list shall be prepared and be uploaded in the web portal for verification and validation in terms of the Rule.
(ii) The management of the institution shall be given an option to call upon the selected candidates to appear in person for interview to substantiate their credibility and financial capacity to the satisfaction of the management.
(iii) In the event of the management finding that any of the selected candidates is not suitable for admission, the management shall be at liberty to reject the candidature of such candidates and the reasons should be communicated to the competent authority
(iv) So far as the option given to the candidates to opt for any number of colleges/courses is concerned, the A.P. State Council for Higher Education shall have a consultation with the petitioner institutions and work out the modalities so as to prevent multiple block age of seats and to ensure that the selection process is completed within a timeframe."
6. Pursuant to the above said directions, the State Government issued the impugned G.O.Ms.No.13, Higher 2 (2002) 8 SCC 481 10 Education (TE/A2) Department, dated 14.08.2014, incorporating the directions issued by the Division Bench by way of amendments to G.O.Ms.No.66, Higher Education (EC.2) Department, dated 03.09.2012 and the orders of the Division Bench dated 20.08.2013, has become final and the said amendments are only optional not mandatory.
7. In Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Aircraft Employees' Cooperative Society Limited, 3 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that though the applicant had pleaded that a provision was discriminatory, no factual foundation was laid in support of this plea; and, in the absence of such foundation, the Court was not justified in recording its conclusion that the impugned provision was violative of the equality clause contained in Article 14 of Constitution.
8. In the case on hand, the petitioner filed the present writ petition with vague allegations and without any factual foundation. The petitioner has not even mentioned about the order dated 20.08.2013, passed by the Division Bench in W.P.No.27777 of 2012 and batch, upholding G.O.Ms.Nos.66 and 67, dated 03.09.2012, and restoring NRI quota from 5% to 15%, nor raised any grounds to that effect.
3(2012) 3 SCC 442 = AIR 2012 SC(CIVIL) 1409 11
9. It is already stated supra that the Division Bench passed order dated 20.08.2013, while considering the principle laid down in P.A.Inamdar (supra) and the said order has become final. Pursuant to said orders only, respondent No.1 had issued the impugned G.O.Ms.No.13, dated 14.08.2014, incorporating the directions mentioned therein, by making necessary amendments to G.O.Ms.No.66, dated 03.09.2012.
10. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any ground in the writ petition (PIL) to interfere with the impugned G.O.Ms.No.13, dated 14.08.2014, issued by respondent No.1 exercising the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the same is liable to be dismissed.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition (PIL) is dismissed. No costs.
Miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, in this petition, shall stand dismissed.
____________________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ _______________________________ J. SREENIVAS RAO, J 07th August, 2024 PSW/mar