Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Dega Venkata Harsha Vardhan vs Akula Venkata Harshavardhan on 24 August, 2018
Bench: Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No(s). OF 2018
(Arising out of SLP (C ) No. 22000 of 2018)
DEGA VENKATA HARSHA VARDHAN & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
AKULA VENKATA HARSHAVARDHAN & ORS. Respondent(s)
with
CIVIL APPEAL No(s). OF 2018
(Arising out of SLP (C ) No. 22330 of 2018)
CIVIL APPEAL No(s). OF 2018
(Arising out of SLP (C ) No. 22697 of 2018)
CIVIL APPEAL No(s). OF 2018
(Arising out of SLP (C ) No. 23061 of 2018)
CIVIL APPEAL No(s). OF 2018
(Arising out of SLP (C ) No. 23008 of 2018)
CIVIL APPEAL No(s). OF 2018
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 22682-22684 of 2018)
CIVIL APPEAL No(s). OF 2018
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 22685-22687 of 2018)
CIVIL APPEAL No(s). OF 2018
(Arising out of SLP (C ) No. 22924 of 2018)
O R D E R
Heard learned counsel for the parties. Leave granted.
The appeal has been preferred against the Signature Not Verified judgment Digitally signed by NEELAM GULATI and order passed by the High Court of Date: 2018.08.27 17:09:02 IST Reason:
Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the state of Andhra Pradesh.2
We have considered the judgment passed by the High Court, in our considered opinion, the High Court has erred in law in holding that the reservation has exceeded by virtue of shifting of the students of OBC category in General Category. The High Court has wrongly erred on finding that reservation exceeds. As a matter of fact 203 candidates of General Category have been included in the OBC category; in case they are counted in the General category, as per their performance, the figure comes to 672. Thus, the reservation has not exceeded in any manner.
The Government Order dated 30.7.2001 para 5 deals with the process of counselling in the following manner:
“(i) In the counselling process, the seats to be filled by open competition should be filled up first, wherein the candidates should be called for counselling based on merit alone irrespect of whether they belong to SC,ST or BV in accordance with the instructions issued by the Government in G.O.MS. No. 996, Employermnet & Social Welfare, dated 11th November, 1975.
(ii) Next, reservation categories like SC/ST/BC candidates will be counselled to fill the seats earmarked for them in their respective 3 categories. During this process, it a candidate belong to Scheduled Cast/Scheduled Tribe/Backward Classes who had taken admission under open competition, ops for a better branch or a better college of his choice for which he or she would be eligible as per the rules of reservation, the seat vacated by him or her in open competition shall be filled with a candidate from the same reservation category only, in order of merit.” It is apparent from the above that the counseling was to be done earlier as per Government order (G.O.)in two phases; Para 5 could have operative only when counseling was done by manual method not by computerised method. It is not possible, that clause (I) & clause
(ii) to para 5 can be resorted to at the same time. As counseling for reserved category candidates was subsequently to the allotment made to open category candidates, the GO is not capable of being implemented at all in the case of computerised counselling that has taking place at present.
However, for future also, it is made clear that it is stated that in case the Merit Reserved Candidate (MRC) is permitted to switch over to SC/ST/BC category, 4 seat reservation shall not be permitted to exceed as prescribed under the Rules.
However, this year’s admissions are not to be disturbed. In case any seat is vacant that to be filled in terms of the order passed today. It would be open to the Government to issue fresh instructions considering the process which is being adopted at present for MRCs have switch over for next academic session.
It is agreed to at Bar the observations made by the High Court was wholly uncalled for and out not to have been made.
The order of the High Court is set aside to the aforesaid extent.
................J. (ARUN MISHRA) ................J. (INDIRA BANERJEE) NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 24, 2018
5
ITEM NO.63 COURT NO.7 SECTION XII-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 22000/2018
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 07-08-2018 in WP No. 29175/2017 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Hyderabad For The State Of Telangana And The State Of Andhra Pradesh) DEGA VENKATA HARSHA VARDHAN & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS AKULA VENKATA HARSHAVARDHAN & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.114441/2018-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) WITH SLP(C) No. 23008/2018 (XII-A) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R.) SLP(C) No. 23061/2018 (XII-A) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.119148/2018-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) SLP(C) No. 22682-22684/2018 (XII-A) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.117201/2018-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) SLP(C) No. 22685-22687/2018 (XII-A) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.117211/2018-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) SLP(C) No. 22697/2018 (XII-A) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R.) SLP(C) No. 22924/2018 (XII-A) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.117914/2018-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) SLP(C) No. 22330/2018 (XII-A) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R.) Date : 24-08-2018 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE For Petitioner(s) Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, AOR Mr. Mrityunjai Singh, Adv.6
Mr. P. Venkat Reddy, Adv.
Mr. Prashant Tyagi, Adv.
M/S. Venkat Palwai Law Associates, AOR Mr. A. Ramesh, Adv.
Ms. Aruna Gupta, AOR Mr. V. Ramchander Goud, Adv. Mr. Dharmesh D.K. Jaiswal, Adv. Mr. Syed Ahmad Naqvi, Adv.
Mr. Gahni Krishna, Adv.
Mr. Basava Prabhbu Patil, Sr. Adv. Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, AOR Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv.
Mr. M.N. Rao, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Y. Raja Gopala Rao, AOR Mr. Taddi Nageswara Rao, Adv. Ms. Y. Vismai Rao, Adv.
Mr. K. Sharat Kumar, Adv.
Ms. M. Yeshasvi, Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Pachnanda, sr. Adv. Mr. A. Satya Prasad, Sr. Adv. Mr. D. Mahesh Babu, AOR Mr. T.V. Bhaskar Reddy, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mullapudi Rambabu, Adv. Mr. N. Eswara Rao, Adv.
Ms. Vijayshree Pattnaik, Adv. M/S. M. Rambabu And Co., AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R (NEELAM GULATI) (JAGDISH CHANDER) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER (SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE)