Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
K. Anand vs Convenor, Engineering, Agricultural ... on 17 June, 1987
Equivalent citations: AIR1988AP9, AIR 1988 ANDHRA PRADESH 9, (1987) 2 ANDH LT 492
ORDER
1. The question in these two cases is rather simple. The petitioners having passed their Intermediate examinations compartmentally (that course is permissible under the Nagarjuna University Act and the Regulations made thereunder) are seeking admissions into the Engineering Colleges affiliated to Nagarjuna University. As a first step they appeared for the common entrance examination conducted by the State Government under the A. P. Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act No. 5 of 1983. The petitioner in W. P. No. 528 of 1987 had secured rank No. 13565 while the writ Petitioner in W. P. No. 176 of 1987 had obtained rank No. 13017. Under the rules they had been allotted for admissions to the Engineering Colleges attached to the Nagarjuna University. According to the ranking which the petitioners had secured in the common entrance examination, the Petitioners ought to have been admitted into the Engineering Colleges; because the Candidates who were lower in ranking securing lesser number of marks in the common entrance examination had been admitted into the Engineering Colleges. But the petitioners were rejected admission by the Nagarjuna University on the ground that they were not eligible to be admitted on the basis of a Regulation of that University denying admissions into the B.Tech. 4 year Degree Courses to those who passed Intermediate qualifying examination compartmentally. That Regulation covering admissions to B.Tech. Degree Courses made from the academic year 1985-86 reads as follows :
"1. Eligibility of Admission:
1. 1 A candidate for admission to four year B.Tech. Degree Course must have passed the Intermediate Examination of the Board of Intermediate, Andhra Pradesh or an equivalent examination recognised by the Nagarjuna University with Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry as the optional subjects. He should have passed all the subjects in the qualifying examination in one attempt securing on the average not less than 50% (45% for SC and ST) of marks in the optional subjects. However the improvement of result of First Year as allowed by the Intermediate Board of Education will be accepted as within the first attempt."
2. There is no dispute that these two petitioners had passed the Intermediate Examination of the Board of Intermediate of the State of Andhra Pradesh compartmentally. As they did not pass that examination in one attempt, they can only he said to have passed Intermediate examination compartmentally. The petitioners' claim for admission into B.Tech., Courses is however based on their performance in common entrance examination.
3. The question is whether their admission into B.Tech. course of the Nagarjuna University is governed by the above University Regulation or by the Common Entrance examination results.
4. The petitioners have now filed these writ petitions challenging that Regulation of the University as being inconsistent with the provisions of the A. P. Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act No. 5 of 1983 and more particularly, the proviso to S. 3 of that Act. The Act No. 5 of 1983 has been passed by the State Legislature with the avowed purpose of regulating admissions into the Educational Institutions in the State and for prohibiting the collection of capitation fees in the State of Andhra Pradesh from applicants seeking admission into educational institutions. In order to achieve that object, 5. 3 of the Act says that subject to such rules as may be made in this behalf, admissions into the educational institutions shall be made either on the basis of the marks obtained in the qualifying examination or on the basis of the ranking assigned in the entrance test conducted by such authority and in such manner as may be prescribed. Under this provision it is open for the rules to provide that admission into colleges should be either on the basis of the marks obtained in the qualifying Intermediate Examination or on the basis of ranking obtained in the common entrance examination. If the rules take the first alternative course and provide for admission on the basis of total marks obtained in qualifying examination no purpose would be served at all by holding entrance examination. But even then the test of compartmental examination propounded by an academic body could not be the basis for denial of admission. Such a test of departmental examination would be irrelevant for the purpose of S. 3 because under the test of total marks that section mentions a candidate who passed Intermediate either compartmentally or in one attempt would still be eligible whereas under compartmental test of the University such a candidate would be altogether ineligible no matter how bio is his total number of marks. For See. 3 accepts qualifying examination as eligibility and awards admission on the basis of the totality of marks. Thus that under the main Section (S. 3) itself the petitioners' eligibility should he accepted. The question of compartmental pass is thus made irrelevant by the Act. Eligibility cannot be judged now by compartmental pass. But what is more important is the proviso to S. 3. Under that proviso to S. 3 admissions into medical and engineering colleges are separately dealt with by an exclusive and exhaustive test of the Act. The proviso directs that such admissions to medical and engineering colleges shall be made only on the basis of the ranking assigned to the candidates in the common entrance test conducted as aforesaid under the Act. The proviso thus makes it clear that for admission into Engineering College the only thing that is relevant is pass and ranking in common entrance test and nothing else. But purporting to act under the rule making authority Oven to the State Government by means of 5. 15 of the Act 5 of 1983, the Government has made G.O.Ms. No. 115, dt. 26-3-1985. That G.O. containing the rules of admission provides that for admission of candidates to the first year or B.E.,/ B.Tech.,/B.Arch., courses into the Constituent Colleges of Andhra, Osmania, Sri Venkateswara and Jawarharlal Nehru Technological Universities and into Regional Engineering College, Warangal and other regional Engineering Colleges in the country for Andhra Pradesh quota of seats only admission rules framed by the appropriate the academic bodies/authorities of the respective Universities/institutions shall be applicable unless otherwise directed by the State Government. However, candidates who secure high ranks at the entrance test shall be called for an interview in the order of merit or selection and allotment of branches/ Institutions.
5. The argument of the Nagarjuna University is that its regulation denying eligibility to a compartmentally passed student should prevail over the ranking the candidate might have obtained in the common entrance test. The implications of this argument are far reaching and in my opinion are contrary to the scheme of S. 3 of the Act. According to that argument the passing of Intermediate Examination except in one attempt does not confer eligibility to sit for common entrance test. Those who do not have the eligibility under the University Regulations cannot sit for the entrance examination. I am not prepared to agree with this contention. This argument does not run in harmony with the general idea of the present day law that treats the Universities as no better than its departments and its employees no better than Government servants. S. 3 does not say that the total number of marks of a candidate got in his Intermediate Examination in one attempt alone should be considered for the purpose of giving admission to the entrance examination or to the University. Qualifying examination is still intermediate and the total marks are marks obtained in that examination. The argument of the Nagarjuna University is that the candidates who passed the Intermediate examination compartmentally cannot have eligibility for admission to B.Tech. courses unless it is first established that under 5. 3 he cannot sit for common entrance examination. There is no warrant for making any such assumption. The Act treats all Intermediates as eligible to appear for the entrance test. The proviso to S. 3 is enacted by the legislature to govern exclusively admissions to engineering and medical colleges. According to that proviso, admission into medical and engineering colleges should be made only on the basis of the ranking assigned in the common entrance examination. If the argument of Nagarjuna University that under its regulations the petitioners ought not to be admitted into the University it could only be on the basis that they could not have appeared for the common entrance test. But they have been permitted to appear for the common entrance test. I am told that in many of the State Universities there is no such ban on compartmental candidates. It cannot now be open to the University to say that they have no eligibility to appear for the common entrance test. When once they were permitted to appear for the common entrance test, their admission into medical and engineering colleges could be governed only by the ranking obtained by them and not by the restrictions which the R. 5 read with the regulation of any University might impose. It is no doubt true that according to R. 5 of the above Rules in G.O.Ms. No. 1 15 a candidate shall be admitted to B.Tech. course on the basis of the rules framed by appropriate academic body and under the above regulations admission into B.Tech. course of the Nagarjuna University to a candidate who passed Intermediate examination compartmentally is denied. R. 5 would create a situation of inconsistency with S. 3. Thus the rules framed by the State Government in G.O.Ms. No. 115 would be inconsistent with the main S. 3 of the Act. In that situation it must be held by the Court that the rule made by the Government will not be valid because it is opposed to the purpose of the main Act. Subordinate law cannot override the main Act. The language of proviso to S. 3 is very clear that admission into medical and engineering colleges shall be made on the basis of the ranking assigned in the common entrance test. The use of the word "only" in (he proviso excludes over other criteria or consideration including the University regulation for admission into medical and engineering colleges. The only relevane'c6nsideration would be the ranking obtained by the candidate in the common entrance examination. It must. therefore, be held that the Nagarjuna University would be acting contrary to the language of the statute in refusing admission on the basis of its regulations read with R. 5 of the Act. Act 5 of 1983 is not only a much later enactment than the regulations enacted by the Nagarjuna University and incorporated by R.5, it also firmly establishes legislative harmony though limited on the universities. I, therefore, cannot uphold the authority of the University to refuse the petitioners' admission into the B.Tech. course on the basis of these Regulations. Ranking obtained by the petitioners in the common entrance examination alone is the relevant criteria as it is in many of the Universities. 1 notice that no reference is made in the copy of R. 5 supplied to me by Nagarjuna University. But the omission if it is real would be greatly significant. But I proceeded on the basis that it is a typing error and R. 5 gives sanctity to the relevant regulations of Nagarjuna University.
6. For that reason alone I direct the University to admit the petitioners into B.Tech. course according to law.
7. I am told that the first year course has almost come to an end and that it would now be difficult to admit these candidates into the B.E. course. But in view of the fact that the petitioners are not responsible for that situation, I direct the University to admit the petitioners on the basis of their ranking and also direct the Government to create, if necessary, 'two additional seats as for the petitioners.
8. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed. No costs. Advocate's fee Rs.250/- in each.
9. Petitions allowed.