Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
K. Srinivasa Rao vs Convener, Eamcet-95, J.N.T.U., ... on 9 July, 1996
Equivalent citations: AIR1996AP389, 1996(3)ALT264, AIR 1996 ANDHRA PRADESH 389, (1996) 3 SERVLR 366, (1996) 3 ANDHLD 696, (1996) 3 ANDH LT 264
Author: V. Rajagopala Reddy
Bench: V. Rajagopala Reddy
ORDER
1. The petitioner seeks to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent, the Convener EAMCET-95, J.N.T.U., Hyderabad, to allot him a-free seat in Mechanical Engineering in Kakatiya Institute of Technology & Science, Warangal, (for short, 'KITS, Warangal') or in any other discipline, striking down the order of allotment of free seat in Mechanical Engineering to the 3rd respondent.
2. The petitioner appeared EAMCET-95 for admission into Engineering course in the State and he secured the rank of 2415. He belongs to Osmania University area. He appeared for interview on 10-7-1995 in the 1st phase of admissions. He requested for allotment of free seat in Mechanical or Electrical Engineering. Rejecting his request, he was allotted a free seat in Civil Engineering in KITS, Warangal. He had accepted the seat, since he had no other option and joined in KITS, Warangal.
3. The 1st respondent likewise interviewed students for payment seats from August, 1995 and completed selection. Thereafter, the 1st respondent issued advertisement dt. 14-9-1995 for admissions into 1000 new/additional seats in various branches and colleges, calling for applications only from the candidates who had got admissions in the 1st and 2nd phase of admissions. The petitioner applied for a free seat in Mechanical Engineering or Electrical Engineering etc. Subsequently another advertisement dt. 23-9-1995 was issued by the 1st respondent stating that the Government of A.P. further sanctioned new/additional seats in two more colleges stipulating the eligibility for admissions as stated in the notification dt. 14-9-1995. The petitioner sent revised application giving revised options of subjects in specialities other than civil Engineering. The petitioner has not been considered for admission in response to his applications, nor any communication was sent to him by R-l. He was totally kept in dark as to the list of rank holders who were allotted the seats in response to the above advertisements.
4. The petitioner came to know that some of the students who secured lesser ranks than him and who were allotted payment seats in Civil Engineering were thereafter given free seats in Mechanical Engineering, without any reason. The 3rd respondent, who secured Tank of 3926 in EAMCET-95, who was allotted payment seat in Civil Engineering in the 2nd phase of admissions, was later re-allotted free seat in Mechanical Engineering in KITS, Warangal by a process called 'sliding process', by the college itself.
5. The petitioner assails the "Sliding process" adopted by the college and the action of the 1st and 4th respondents in allotting free seat in Mechanical Engineering to R-3, who obtained a lesser rank than the petitioner, contending that whenever seats were made available they should be offered, without any further advertisement, to the candidates who applied initially, strictly on the basis of merit in the discipline of their choice. The selection of the candidates to the available seats without following such procedure and without publishing the list of candidates who were selected by sliding process is contrary to Ahdhra Pradesh Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission into Under-graduate Professional Courses through Common Entrance Test) Rules, 1993, issued in G.O. No. 184 Education (EC-2), dated 20-8-1993, (for short, 'the Rules').
6. The 1st respondent filed counter-affidavit stating that the petitioner accepted the free seat in Civil Engineering, though he was offered payment seat in Mechanical/Electrical Engineering etc. In the new/additional seats the petitioner could not get any better branch of his choice and he was retained in the Civil Engineering Branch. Admissions were closed on 15-12-1995 and thereafter no admissions were made by the 1st respondent. Due to sliding process conducted by the Principal of R-4 institute, the 3rd respondent was allotted payment seat in Mechanical Engineering.
7. The 4th respondent, who was im-pleaded in the W.P., filed counter stating that the 1st respondent gave a list of candidates whose original branches were changed by a process of sliding. As per that list, the 3rd respondent was changed from Civil Engineering payment seat to Mechanical Engineering payment seat. Subsequently, as per the order of this Court in W.P. No. 27192/95 dt. 21-12-1995, R-3 given free seat in Mechanical Engineering. However, it is stated that the 1st respondent instructed all the Principals of all private Engineering Colleges to take action to complete the internal sliding process by obtaining integrated option forms from all the 1st year students. Accordingly, by way of sliding process the 3rd respondent was given payment seat in Mechanical Engineering and the petitioner could not be accommodated in a free seat in Mechanical Engineering, as there were no vacancies. The final list was approved by the convener--R-l. Hence, the action of the institution was only as per the list given by the convener and the institute cannot be held responsible for the sliding process.
8. The case of the 3rd respondent is that he was given a payment seat of Civil Engineering in KITS, Warangal. He filed W.P. No. 27192/95 on the ground that candidates of lesser ranks were given free seats in Mechanical Engineering. This Court in its order dt. 21-12-1995 held that ''the so called sliding process was arbitrary and illegal" and consequently issued a direction to allot a free seat in Mechanical Engineering to the 3rd respondent. Accordingly he was given a free seat in Mechanical Engineering in the same College.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that as per the Rules, admissions have to be made strictly in accordance with the ranks assigned in EAMCET--95 examination. Since the 3rd respondent, who got lesser rank than the petitioner, was allotted a free seat in Mechanical Engineering in the same college, the petitioner also is entitled for a free seat in Mechanical Engineering. The ratio decided in Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of A.P., and the decisions in W.P. Nos. 24473 and 27192 of 1995, rendered following the decision in Unni Krishnan's case, (supra) considering the same set of facts, are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and the petitioner is therefore, entitled for a Writ of Mandamus, as prayed for.
10. It is not disputed that the petitioner secured the rank of 2415, whereas the 3rd respondent got the rank of 3926 and both belong to O.C. of Osmania University local area. The petitioner, from the beginning, requested the 1st respondent for a free seat in Mechanical/Electrical Engineering. However, he was offered only free seat in Civil Engineering. His request for free seat in Mechanical Engineering etc., was rejected. He had no option except to accept the free seat in Civil Engineering. As far as the 3rd respondent, who got lesser rank than the petitioner, is concerned, in the beginning he was allotted payment seat in Civil Engineering. In the 1000 new/additional seats, the petitioner reiterated his request for a free seat in Mechanical Engineering. His request was again refused. Hence he remained in Civil Engineering free seat. The 3rd respondent requested for a change of his speciality into Mechanical Engineering and he was given payment seat in Mechanical Engineering.
11. How the 1000 new/additional seats were filled up is not disclosed by the 1st respondent. R-l merely stated in the counter-affidavit that no one obtaining lower rank than the petitioner was offered a seat in Mechanical Engineering or in any other branch in the new seats created by the Government and that the application of the petitioner was considered and he could not be accommodated in any better branch. The main contention of the petitioner is that the newly created seats have been filled up without calling the candidates for interview. The outcome of the selection of these 1000 seats was not published in the news papers or in the notice board of the College. Any additional seat had to be filled up in accordance with the merit and the results of selection have to be published in the news papers and in the notice board of the college. What emerges from the counter-affidavit filed by the 1st and 4th respondents was that some seats had become available in KITS, Warangal, and as per the instructions of the 1st respondent, the Principal of R-4 institute had, by way of sliding process, converted the seat of the 3rd respondent from payment Civil into payment Mechanical. It is the case of the petitioner that his case was not considered by the 4th respondent. This Court in W.P. No. 24473/ 95, while categorically condemning the sliding process, held that after completion of admissions a waiting list has to be prepared based upon the EAMCET ranking and publish the same along with the marks obtained and such a list should be adopted by the competent authority for filling up of casual vacancies or drop out vacancies arising after the admission of payment seats are finalised and it was permissible for the Convener to cancel the free seat offered to any candidate having lower rank than the rank of the petitioner therein.
12. It has been held in Unni Krishnan's case, (supra) that (Paras 8 and 9).
"The result of the entrance examination if any held, should be published ..... The casual vacancies or unfilled vacancies, if any, shall also be filled in the same manner ......... All allotments made shall be published in two leading news papers and on the notice board of the respective colleges and at such places as the competent authority may direct, along with marks obtained by each candidate in the relevant entrance test....... After making the allotments, the competent authority shall also prepare and publish a waiting list of the candidates along with the marks obtained by them in the relevant entrance examination. The said list shall be followed for filling up any casual vacancies or drop out vacancies arising after the admissions are finalised."
13. From the counter-affidavit of the 4th respondent it is clear that they have not followed the procedure laid down in the above case. Admittedly some casual vacancies arose in the college. They should have been filled up from the waiting list prepared by the 1st respondent or as per ranking and all such allotments should be published showing their allotments, marks and ranking. This procedure was followed by respondents 1 and 4 only in its breach. Admittedly 4th respondent has made the selections of the casual vacancies. Relevant files are not produced before the Court to show that the procedure as per the Rules has been followed in filling those seats and the counter-affidavit filed by the 1st respondent is not of much help in this regard, since a mere statement was made therein that the Rules have been followed strictly.
14. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent contended that the petitioner never requested for a free seat in Mechanical Engineering. It is also contended that he rejected the offer for payment seat in Mechanical Engineering at the time of interview. The question of offering payment seat in Mechanical Engineering at the time of interview does not arise. Only after admissions into free seat are completed, in the 2nd phase of admissions, the choice for admission into payment seat will be askpd. The petitioner has stated in his affidavit that his request for free seat in Mechanical Engineering was curtly rejected, hence he had to accept the offer for a free seat in Civil Engineering. The said averment is not denied by the 1st respondent in the counter-affidavit. Hence whenever a free seat arises in Mechanical Engineering, before it was offered to a candidate of a lesser rank, it ought to have been offered to the petitioner. It is clear from the conduct of the petitioner that he had been repeatedly requesting change of his speciality. I am therefore of the view that the allotment of free seat in Mechanical Engineering to the 3rd respondent is clearly contrary to the Rules and the ratio decided in Unni Kirishnan's case, (supra).
15. It is true that by an order of this Court in W.P. No. 27192/95 the petitioner therein (R3) was allotted a free seat in Mechanical Engineering. The principle on which the said direction was given was that candidates with lesser ranks should not be given free seats in Mechanical Engineering when candidates who obtained higher ranks were denied the said speciality. The learned Judge in the above case followed the ratio in Unni Krishnan's case (supra) and directed to allot a free seat to the petitioner therein (R3) in the speciality of his choice, since he got better rank than other candidates who were allotted free seats in Mechanical Engineering and other branches. By the same principle and as per the same decision in the above W.P., the petitioner is also entitled for a free seat in Mechanical Engineering. There is no escape from this conclusion in view of the decision of this Court in the above W.P. and in view of the principle laid down in Unni Krishnan's case (supra).
16. It is contended by the learned counsel for the convener that there are other candidates who have obtained better rank than the petitioner and their cases also to be directed to be considered. This contention cannot be accepted. In spite of adjourning the case at the request of the learned counsel to enable him to file a counter-affidavit giving all details of the candidates who have obtained better rank than the petitioner in all the colleges including KITS, Warangal, the learned counsel for the convener has not chosen to file any such affidavit. It is therefore, not clear from the pleadings about the candidates who obtained better ranks than the petitioner. It is interesting to notice that the learned counsel for the convener has not advanced this argument in the earlier writ petition, wherein the 3rd respondent was the petitioner, who obtained lesser rank than the petitioner. Having kept the Court dark about these facts in the earlier writ petition and when the 3rd respondent obtained a direction for allotment of a free seat in Mechanical Engineering, it is not open to the learned counsel to raise such an objection in this case. In any event, I am concerned only with the petitioner herein, who is making a valid grievance that a person who obtained lesser rank than him, was given free seat in a better branch. Almost at the end of the 1st year it is not desirable for this Court to direct a roving enquiry into all these aspects, though it is certainly a matter for the authorities to take note of how candidates with lesser ranks got free seats in prime specialities of Engineering.
17. It is contended by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent that the petitioner has approached this Court when 1st year is almost nearing completion and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. Learned counsel cannot justifiably raise this contention. Any delay on the part of the petitioner to come to the Court is due to the fault of the 1st respondent in not publishing the selection list of candidates for filling up the 1000 new/ additional seats and drop cuts and casual vacancies. In the absence of such publication or at least putting up on the notice board of the college about the result of the sliding process, all the candidates cannot be expected to know which candidates with lesser ranks have obtained free seats in better specialities. In these circumstances, I hold that there is no delay at all in this case. The petitioner had approached the Court immediately after he came to know that his colleague who has got lesser rank, got a free seat in Mechanical Engineering.
18. In view of the above discussion the writ petition is liable to be allowed. I accordingly direct the 1st respondent and the 4th respondent to convert the seat of the petitioner from free seat in Civil Engineering into free seat in Mechanical Engineering in the same college, either by converting or cancelling the free seats given to others in Mechanical Engineering who got lesser ranks than the petitioner, except the 3rd respondent who is protected by an order of this Court in this regard. This exercise should be completed forthwith, not beyond 10 days. The writ petition is accordingly allowed; in the circumstances without costs.
18. Petition allowed.