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
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
(2005) 6 SCC 537
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.
(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.
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)
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
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
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
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
(2002) 8 SCC 481
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.
(2012) 3 SCC 442 = AIR 2012 SC(CIVIL) 1409
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
