Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
A. Ranganath vs Andhra University And Ors. on 25 April, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003(3)ALD512, 2003(4)ALT32
JUDGMENT
DEVINDER GUPTA, C.J
1. Common Impugned Order passed by the learned Single Judge allowing Writ Petitions is under challenge by the University in the appeals except WA No. 1340 of 2002. In W.A.No. 1340 of 2002 order dismissing the Writ Petition is under challenge. The question involved is same and as such all appeals are being decided by a Common Order.
2. To various Postgraduate Courses for 2002-2003, a Common Entrance Examination was to be conducted by the Andhra University for which applications were invited. The last date for receipt of applications to various Postgraduate Courses was 30.4.2002. After the entrance test was held on 2.6.2002 and before admissions could take place, Vice-Chancellor of the University on 23.6.2002 issued a notification stipulating that such of the candidates who had studied P.G. Courses or had done M. Phil or Ph.D were not eligible to be admitted into any other P.G. Course. Such admissions were treated as horizontal and it was clarified that admissions were permissible only for vertical courses. Insofar as LL.B., Course is concerned for which notification was issued subsequent to the date of entrance examination for various PG Courses, such condition was incorporated in the Instructions and Information to the applicants supplied along with the applications. This condition was challenged in the Writ Petitions by the candidates on the ground that once a notification had been issued and candidates had appeared for entrance examination, it was not permissible for the University to have altered the conditions of admission restricting their choice of admission into various courses and that the Vice-Chancellor had no authority or power to do so. University resisted the Writ Petitions stating that the Vice-Chancellor being the executive head had authority and power to issue the notification and in fact the condition was formulated on 25.2.2002 much before the entrance examination was held for courses other than LL.B.
3. Learned Single Judge relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in A. Rama v. Kakatiya University, , wherein it was held that it was not permissible for the University to have made any alterations subsequently to the detriment of candidates, who pursuant to the notification had applied for admission since they did not suffer any disqualification as on the date of making the applications. Following the said decision, the stipulation contained in the notification dated 23.6.2002 was held inapplicable and it was directed that admissions are required to be made strictly in accordance with the conditions as were contained in the original notification. On the second point prescribing horizontal admissions, learned Single Judge relying upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Registrar, Nagarjuna University v. M. Madhava Rao, 1996 (2) An.WR 757, (W.A.No. 361 of 1994 dated 1.2.1996) held that the decision of University in restricting the so called horizontal admissions cannot be sustained as there was no rationale in adopting such a policy by the University, Even on the competence of the Vice-Chancel lor who had issued the notification for which only Academic Senate was held to be the competent authority, notification was held to be illegal. While allowing the Writ Petitions, Condition No. 10 in the Instructions to Candidates issued for LL.B., Course and similar conditions in Memo dated 23.6.2002 for other courses was set aside and consequential directions were made to admit candidates on the basis of merit obtained by them in the entrance examination after ignoring the notification dated 23.6.2002. Writ Petition No. 12674 of 2002 was dismissed by another learned Single Judge against which W.A. No. 1340 of 2002 has been filed.
4. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the entire material on record.
5. In the appeals, the appellants raised a point that the Vice-Chancellor by virtue of Clause (a) of Sub-section (8) of Section 13 of the Andhra Pradesh Universities Act, 1991, had ample authority to issue notification in question. University also tried to support its stand as regards the validity of notification on the ground that the ratio of the decision in Madhavarao's case (supra) could not have been applied to the facts of the case since in the said case, the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Y. Srinivasa Rao v.
J. Veeraiah, , were incorrectly applied. Therefore, the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Madhavarao's case requires reconsideration. Learned Counsel for the University further contended that in any case, even if learned Single Judge was right in setting aside the notification, directions could not have been issued for admitting the candidates after the courses had commenced for which reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Shafali Nandwani v. State of Haryana and Ors., 2002 (6) Supreme 578.
6. As a matter of fact, on the very first point as regards the timing of issuance of notification, the Writ Appeals can be disposed of since no case has been made out to differ with the ratio of the decision in A. Rama's case (supra) wherein it was held that once rule of admission had been prescribed and candidates called upon to apply for admission on the basis of the rule, it was not open for the University to alter the rule of admission after the entrance examination had been held. It may be open to the University to alter the rule of admission before calling upon the applications but once applications had been called for on the basis of the existing rule position, it was not open for the University authorities at a latter stage to alter the said rule of admission.
7. Even as regards putting restriction on the candidates who had studied P.G. Course or who have done M.Phil or Ph.D., and making them ineligible to be admitted to another P.G. Course, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was justified in placing reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Registrar, Nagarjuna University v. M. Madhava Rao which in turn had placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Y. Srinivasa Rao v. J, Veeraiah, The facts in Madhavarao's case were similar where the policy of the University to allow only vertical movement of students was held to be bad in law in view of the ratio laid down in Srinviasarao 's case supra.
8. Insofar as the decision of the learned Single Judge on the competence of the Vice-Chancellor to issue such a notification is concerned, we are of the view that, the said decision requires interference. Clause (a) of Sub-section (8) of Section 13 of the Act empowers the Vice -Chancellor to take action with regard to any matter in which any Officer or authority is empowered to take action, which the Vice-Chancellor considers desirable. The Vice-Chancellor taking decision under this clause has to report the action taken by him to the Officer or Authority concerned. Vice-Chancellor by virtue of his Office is also a member and Chairman of the Board of Management and of the Academic Senate. Academic Senate is one of the authorities of the University as defined in Section 17 of the Act; therefore, any action or decision, which the Academic Senate is entitled to take, could be taken by the Vice-Chancellor under Clause (a) of Sub-section (8) of Section 13 of the Act in case the Vice-Chancellor considered that immediate action was desirable. The Vice-Chancellor had to report his decision to the authority later on. In view of this, irrespective of the fact that the decision of the learned Single Judge on this score is not sustainable, we are of the view that no interference is called for with the remaining part of the impugned decision. The decision of Supreme, Court in Shafali Nandwani v. State of Haryana relied upon by learned Counsel for the appellant cannot be made applicable to the facts of the case in hand since in the said case admissions were to Postgraduate Course in Medical College for which regulations of the All India Medical Council were applicable which prohibited admitting M.D. students in subsequent academic sessions. There is no such statutory prohibition brought to our notice insofar as admission to the Postgraduate Courses. Therefore, appeals preferred against the order allowing the Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed and W.A. No. 1340 of 2002 deserves to be allowed.
9. For the reasons aforementioned, Writ Appeal No. 1340 of 2002 is allowed and the other Writ Appeals are dismissed. Consequently, Writ Petition No. 12674 of 2002 is also allowed in terms of the directions as are contained in the impugned order dated 22.8.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 14394 of 2002 and other connected petitions. We are informed that the University, pursuant to the impugned order has not proceeded in the matter. Accordingly we direct the University to proceed ahead with the admissions and implement the decision within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. There shall be no order as to costs.