Mandlem Shaik Saniya Azra vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 10275 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Mandlem Shaik Saniya Azra vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 14 November, 2024

Author: R Raghunandan Rao

Bench: R Raghunandan Rao

                                       1
                                                             HCJ &RRR,J
                                                       W.P.No.23760/2024


 APHC010463442024
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                  AT AMARAVATI                   [3446]
                           (Special Original Jurisdiction)

           THURSDAY, THE FOURTHEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
                 TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                  PRESENT

       HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR

         THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

                      WRIT PETITION NO: 23760/2024

Between:

Mandlem Shaik Saniya Azra                                ...PETITIONER

                                     AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others               ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. TAGORE YADAV YARAGORLA

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. T V SRI DEVI

2. GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH FW

The Court made the following COMMON ORDER:

(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao)

Heard Sri Tagore Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, learned G.P. for Medical, Health and Family Welfare

appearing for respondent No.1 and Smt. T.V. Sridevi, learned Standing

Counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

HCJ &RRR,J

2. The petitioner had appeared in NEET 2024 Examination for

admission into MBBS / BDS course. The petitioner, who belongs to BC-E

category, had obtained 626 marks and secured rank No.48374 in the

said examination.

3. The petitioner had participated in the counseling process for

allotment of MBBS seats, in accordance with the order of merit in

general as well as reserved categories. The process of counseling and

allotment of seats is regulated by G.O.Ms.No.126, Health, Medical and

Family Welfare (C-1) Department, dated 24.07.2017. The petitioner,

had given her choice of preferencei.e., her first preference was Kurnool

Medical College in Kurnool, falling within the SV University area and

her second preference was Government Medical College, Anantapur. In

the course of counseling, the petitioner was allotted a seat in the

Government Medical College, Anantapur in Phase-I of counseling. The

petitioner joined the Government Medical College, Anantapur, and

sought for up-gradation forallotment in Phase-II counseling by seeking a

seat in Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool. However, the petitioner was

not allotted a seat in Kurnool Medical College. Aggrieved by the non-

allotment of such seat, the petitioner has approached this Court.

4. The contention of the petitioner is that 9 seats were

reserved for BC-E candidates, in Kurnool Medical College, whereas only

7 persons, belonging to BC-E category were allotted seats in the said

HCJ &RRR,J

college. She contends that the seat matrix, once fixed before the

counseling process commences, cannot be changed and relies upon

G.O.Ms.No.126, dated 24.07.2017 for this contention.

5. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent

by the Registrar of the 2nd respondent University. The University admits

that 9 seats had been reserved in BC-E category in Kurnool Medical

College. However, one of these seats was also reserved for PwBD

category candidate within the BC-E category. It is stated that this seat

was allotted to one Ms. Tasmia Tabassum Nalbandu. It is further stated

that 8 seats which had been allotted to the BC-E category in Kurnool

Medical College underwent a change on account of certain

developments.

6. It is stated that during Phase-I of counseling, seats were

allotted to the candidates strictly in the order of merit and without

verifying their reserved category. In this process Sri Shaik Mohammad

Tousif and Ms. Shaik Sumaiyya were allotted seats, in the open

category, in SVU Medical College, Tirupati. Thereafter, these two

candidates were able to obtain seats in Kurnool Medical College under

BC-E category. After sliding these 2 candidates to Kurnool Medical

Collage, the open category seats vacated by these candidates were

allotted to Sri Ms. Dopperla Shaik Amisha and Ms. Shaik

SumaiahTehseen. By virtue of this filling up of seats, by these two BC-E

HCJ &RRR,J

category students, the seats available in Kurnool Medical College for BC-

E category students had to be reduced by 2 seats.

7. The counter affidavit filed by the Registrar also sets out the

table of candidates, belonging to BC-E category, who have been allotted

to Kurnool Medical College. The table relating to Phase-I counseling

shows that 14 candidates belonging to BC-E category were allotted seats

in Kurnool Medical College. Of these seats, 4 seats were allotted under

O.C category while 10 seats were allotted to BC-E category students

under BC-E category itself.

8. The counter affidavit further states that at the end of Phase-

II counseling, 7 candidates out of the 14 candidates were allotted under

open category while 7 candidates were allotted under BC-E category. It

may also be noted that all the 7 candidates allotted under BC-E category

are candidates falling within the category of meritorious reserved

candidates.

9. Apart from this, it is also stated, in the counter affidavit,

that 63 seats had been earmarked for BC-E category in SV University

area. However, 92 BC-E candidates were allotted MBBS seats. This

included meritorious reserved candidates. It is stated that if these

meritorious reserved candidates were excluded, 63 seats were allotted

under BC-E category while 4 seats were allotted to the candidates in

Andhra University area.

HCJ &RRR,J

Consideration of the Court:

10. G.O.Ms.No.126 dated 24.07.2017, which sets out the

procedure for admissions in Clause-4(x), stipulates that the unit for

fixation of reservation is the University, with a caveat that the

percentage of reservation to each college should also be maintained as

far as possible. According to the procedure set out in G.O.Ms.No.126,

dated 24.07.2017, the seats available under open category would be

filled up strictly in the order of merit of the candidates. Thereafter,

admissions for various reserved categories would be taken up by

considering the merit of the candidates within that reserved category.

At that stage, a candidate belonging to a reserved category, who had

been allotted a seat in the open category, is permitted to move into the

reserved category seats, if he so chooses. Such a candidate is called

Meritorious Reserved Candidate.

11. The question of whether a candidate belonging to a reserved

category, who obtains a seat in open category should be treated as

reserved category candidate, for the purpose of calculating the

percentage of reservation, was raised before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

This question has been answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Indira Sawnhey vs. Union of Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India1, where it

has been held that a reserved category candidate, who has obtained a

1992 Supp (3) SCC 217

HCJ &RRR,J

seat by dint of his/her merit in the open category, should be treated only

as anopen category student and his/her allotment of seat should not be

takeninto account for calculating the number of reserved category

candidates, who have been allotted seats.

12. After this, a further question arose as to whether such a

reserved category candidate, who has been allotted a seat in open

category, can move to a reserved category seat. A subsidiary question

that also arose was whether a seat vacated by a reserved category

candidate in the open category when he choose to move into a reserved

category, should be allotted again to an open category candidate or to a

reserved category candidate. This question had been considered by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Ritesh R. Sah vs. Dr. Y.L.

Yamul2. There was some controversy on account of the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme court regarding admission to civil services, in Union of

India vs. Ramesh Ram and Ors.,3. This controversy has now been settled

by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tripurari

Sharan and Anr., vs. Ranjit Kumar Yadav and Ors.,4.

13. In Tripurari Sharan and Anr., vs. Ranjit Kumar Yadav and

Ors., the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering the perceived

conflict between the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shri

(1999) 3 SCC 253

(2010) 7 SCC 234

(2018) 2 SCC 656

HCJ &RRR,J

Ritesh R. Sah vs. Dr. Y.L. Yamul and the case of Union of India vs.

Ramesh Ram and Ors., had held in the following manner.

25. It is clear from Ritesh R. Sah [Ritesh R. Sah v. Y.L. Yamul, (1996) 3 SCC 253] , that in the case of admission to postgraduate medical institutions, an MRC who chooses to avail of the option of admission to a college with seats kept for the reserved category is deemed to have been admitted as an open category candidate. He continues to be open category candidate. There is no migration into the reserved category even if an MRC opts for a seat earmarked for reserved category candidates. The lowest-ranking candidates who qualified in the reserved category, cannot hence have option for colleges/seats in reserved category on account of the MRC's choice, may be adjusted against the choices of college seats then available in the general category left over by MRC. However such reserved category candidates continue in reserved category, except for such option. Thus, by treating an MRC as a general category candidate, the number of reserved seats remains the same, and reservations do not exceed 50%. This is also consistent with the principles of equity. In view of the above, we could not find any reason to disagree with the conclusions reached by the Full Bench [Controller of Examination, Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination v. Nidhi Sinha, 2016 SCC OnLine Pat 9737 : AIR 2017 Pat 1] of the High Court.

26. In light of the cases discussed hereinabove, both questions are answered as follows:

26.1. An MRC can opt for a seat earmarked for the reserved category, so as to not disadvantage him against less meritorious reserved category candidates. Such MRC shall be treated as part of the general category only.

26.2. Due to the MRC's choice, one reserved category seat is occupied, and one seat among the choices available to general category candidates remains unoccupied. Consequently, one lesser-ranked reserved category candidate who had choices

HCJ &RRR,J

among the reserved category is affected as he does not get any choice anymore. To remedy the situation i.e. to provide the affected candidate a remedy, the 50th seat which would have been allotted to X--MRC, had he not opted for a seat meant for the reserved category to which he belongs, shall now be filled up by that candidate in the reserved category list who stands to lose out by the choice of the MRC. This leaves the percentage of reservation at 50% undisturbed.

14. The above passage, in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court clarifies that the vacancy, which arises on account of a

meritorious reserved candidate, who moves to a reserved category seat

after beingallotted an open category seat, should be filled up only by a

reserved category candidate. This requirement is because the

meritorious reserved candidate is to be counted only as an open

category candidate and is moving into a reserved category seat, which

would reduce the number of seats available for reserved category

candidates. In such circumstances, the two vacancies, arising out of Sri

Shaik Mohammad Tousif and Ms. Shaik Sumaiyya's move to Kurnool

Medical college, in the reserved category, being filled up by Ms.

Dopperla Shaik Amisha and Ms. Shaik SumaiahTehseen in SV Medical

College Tirupathi, would have to be counted as seats which had been

allotted to BC-E candidates in the Kurnool Medical College. The same

can also be understood to mean that the number of BC-E category seats

in Kurnool Medical College, would reduce by two seats and the same are

allotted, to BC-E reserved students, under the general category, in S.V.

HCJ &RRR,J

Medical College. The subsequent move of these candidates, to the open

category in Kurnool Medical College, would not make any difference, as

the general category seats vacated by them, in S.V. Medical College,

have been filled up by two other BC-E reserved category candidates.

15. In the circumstances, we do not find any irregularity in the

reduction of reserved category seats in Kurnool Medical College.

Consequently, the petitioner cannot be accommodated in BC-E category

seats in Kurnool Medical College.

16. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no

order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,

shall stand closed.

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ                      R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
                                                                      JS.

                                                           HCJ &RRR,J

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao)

_______ November, 2024 JS