Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Ch. Chinnaiah vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Others on 27 July, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(5)ALD496, AIR 2000 ANDHRA PRADESH 8, (2000) 1 SCT 867, (1999) 3 ANDHWR 133, (1999) 5 ANDHLD 496
Author: Goda Raghuram
Bench: Goda Raghuram
ORDER Goda Raghuram, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23-3-1999 in WP No.29892 of 1998, dismissing the writ petition. The appellant appeared for B.Ed. Common Entrance Test - 1998, and obtained Rank No.1253. In the writ petition he challenged Rule 10(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Colleges of Education (Regulation of Admission into B.Ed, course through Common Entrance Test) Rules, 1989. The said Rule reads as under:
"10 seats in each Government comprehensive college of Education (it is now being called as Government institution of Advanced Study in Education)/Government College of Education (This is now being called as College of Teacher Education) shall be reserved for Section Officers and other non-gazetted officials including-Record Assistants and attenders working in the Education Department of Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, as permitted by the Government and ministerial staff including the Record Assistants and attenders working in the offices under the control of the Director of School Education and the ministerial staff including record assistants and attenders working in the recognised non-Government institutions like Zilla Parishads, Panchayat Samithis, Municipalities, private institutions under the administrative control of the Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, as permitted by the Director of School Education. Their selection for admission will be made by the Director of School Education purely on the basis of rank assigned in the common entrance test; If sufficient number of candidates are riot available under this quota, they may be filled in by the candidates from the general pool".
In the appellant's contention, on account of the operation of the impugned rule ten seats in each of the Government comprehensive Colleges of Education having been appropriated towards the said reservation, the appellant has been Unable to obtain a seat which he would have otherwise Obtained. He has contended that the judgments of the Supreme Court as well as this Court invalidated reservations made In favour of children of retired employees and also Wards of college and industry staff and separate assessment criteria distinct from the general assessment criteria has been declared invalid and on a parity of reasoning the reservation prescribed in the impugned rule has-to be declared as invalid and inoperative. He has also Contended that the reservation prescribed by the impugned rule is benefit of rational classification inasmuch as the classification has no rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The learned single Judge having dismissed the writ petition rejecting all the aforesaid contentions, the appealing preferred.
2. At the hearing of appeal learned Counsel for the appellant reiterated the same contentions. The appellant's Counsel cited a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in S.V.U.Teachers Association, Tirupati v.
Srivenkateswara University, Tirupati, , in support, of his contention1 that the impugned rule is invalid. The Sri Venkateswara and J.N.T. Universities the State of Andhra Pradesh created supernumerary posts for the purpose of children of teaching and non-teaching staff of the respective educational institutions Following the earlier decision of this Court invalidating such practice thee State Government directed the Universities concerned to withdraw such/facility and consequent on such withdrawal Writ petitions were filed challenging the withdrawal of the policy of reservation in favour of wards of teaching and non-teaching staff in the two Universities Following the settled law on this aspect of the matter the Division Bench upheld the withdrawal of the policy.
3. Another decision cited the learned Counsel Thapar Institute of Engineering And Technology v. State of Punjab, . The Technological Institute of Textile and Science at Bhiwani (for short the TIT&S') is running an institute imparting, education in Textite Technology, Textile Chemistry, Computer Science and Management Scienee leading to the award of B.Teeh/M.Tech/M.M.S Degrees, and also owns and runs a textile mill in the same premises Apart from ISO seats for B.Tech, Course run by TIT&S 4 additional seats have been provided for the wards of the employees, two of such additional seats are in the discipline of Computer Science and two other in Textiles. Of the 4 seats two are earmarked for the college staff and two for mill/school staff. The TIT&S does not receive any financial aid from (he State Government or Central Government or affiliating University or another local authority. To be eligible for admission to those earmarked seats the candidate is required to have atleast 60% marks in the aggregate of three subjects (Physics, Chemistry and Maths) of 10+2 examination and admission is to be made on the basis of the merit to be earned according to the marks secured in the entrance examination conducted by the respondent-University. Seats earmarked for college and mill/school staff can be inter-changed in case there is no eligible candidate in one particular group and if a seat allotted for Computer Course is not desired by the allottee, he shall be offered a seat in the Textile Course and, if any seat remains vacant, the requirement of service period may be relaxed with prior approval of the Chairman of the Societies. The wards of the employees who secure admission on their own merit or on reserved seats of wards are eligible for freeship the affiliating University directed TIT&S not to make any admissions under this category. Aggrieved thereby the writ petition was filed and on dismissal thereof the matter came to be considered by the Supreme Court. Another institute Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology, Patiala (for short 'the TIET') also reserved 2% of its seats in favour of the children of the employees and 5% for the children of employees of Thapar Group of Companies. On being directed by the Government of Punjab to discontinue the said reservation a writ petition was filed, which was dismissed by the High Court and came to be considered by the Supreme Court along with TIT&S case. Following the earlier judgment in J.P. Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, , the Supreme Court upheld the view taken by the High Court that the reservation made by the appellants therein in favour of the wards of its employees was unsustainable in law. During the Courts of its reasoning, the Supreme Court made the following observations:
"16. ..... It is no doubt true that the four additional seats for which reservations was made for the wards of the college and mill/school staff of the TIT&S are in addition to 90 seats and admission is made on the basis of marks obtained in the Entrance Examination conducted by the respondent-university. But for the purpose of admission to these four seats a separate merit list is drawn in respect of the candidates who are eligible for these seats and admission is not made according to merit as reflected in the common merit list. Such reservation in favour of wards of the college and mill/ school staff of the TIT&S does not satisfy the test of admission being given strictly on the basis of merit as laid down by this Court and has been rightly held to be impermissible by the High Court. The said appeal is, therefore, liable to, be dismissed."
4. The appellant herein strongly relies on the observation of the Supreme Court in the passage extracted supra, to contend that as in the facts in the case before the Supreme Court, in the B.Ed, course also the reserved category of Government employees, though they have to pass the common entrance test, are considered for allotment of seats on the basis of their own inter se ranking for allotment of seats within the quota earmarked for the said category. Their entitlement to a seat not having to depend on their general ranking in the merit list, the observations of the Supreme Court equally apply to the impugned reservation and result in the invalidation of the rule impugned in the writ petition. An analysis of the judgment of the Supreme Court clearly discloses that the statement of facts recorded by the Supreme Court in respect of the reservations which fell for its consideration was in the context of the principle reiterated by it as is apparent from the sentence immediately following the said statement of facts - "such reservation in favour of wards of the college/mill/school staff of the T1T&S does not satisfy the test of admission being given strictly on the basis of the merit as laid down by this Court and rightly held to be impermissible by the Supreme Court." The invalidation of the reservation policy by the Supreme Court was on the basis that the reservation in favour of wards of the employees is an irrational classification.
5. Coming to the case on hand, the reservation by the impugned rule is not for the children or wards of Government employees. In fact it is not for the children and wards. The reservation is for Section Officers and other Non-gazetted Officials including Record Assistants and Attenders working in the Education Department of Andhra Pradesh Secretariat as permitted by the Government and Ministerial Staff including Record Assistants and Attenders working in the offices under the control of the Director of School Education and the ministerial staff including Record Assistants and Attenders working in local body Institutions like Zilla Parishads, Panchayat Samithies, Municipalities, etc. Further their selection for admission will be made by the Director of School Education purely on the basis of rank assigned in the Common Entrance Test.
6. The State Government in the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition stated that the impugned rules have been enacted in order to "enable the ministerial employees to acquire B.Ed, qualification to become eligible for transfer/promotion to the post of teaching category and further the employees working in the Educational Department being expected to acquire B.Ed, qualification to gain the requisite academic knowledge for dealing with the matters of Department of School Education and to ensure better expertise in the Department."
7. The reservation by the impugned rule is limited only to the comprehensive colleges of Education/Government Colleges of Education, which are exclusively administered and funded by the State. The rationale underlying the rule clearly appears to be to enrich the cadre of its employees working in the Education Department and its allied Departments and the Educational Institutions under the local bodies, so as to enable them to more effectively perform their duties, which are in the realm of administration of Education Department or of the educational institutions themselves. In the circumstances it cannot be held that the reservation in favour of such category of Government, employees is either irrational or has no rational nexus with the objects sought to be achieved. The object of reservation is rational and related to the general purpose of the State and the Local Bodies in the matter of administration of educational institutions. Well equipped Government servants and employees of the academic institutions run by the local bodies are a sine qua non for effective administration of this crucial State activity. The cases cited by the appellant all deal with invalidation of reservation made in favour of the children or wards of staff of educational institutions. The ratio of these cases has no relevance or application to the reservation impugned herein. We are clearly of the view that on this account the impugned rules does not suffer from the vice of irrationality or improper classification.
8. It has been vehemently urged that the reservation by the impugned rule would also violate the settled law that no reservation can be made in excess of 50%. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition it is pleaded that there are 12 Government Colleges in the State, in which there are 160 seats each in most of the colleges and that by allotting 10 seats in each college it would amount to reserving 6% seats to the reserved category and consequently this could run counter to the 50% ceiling on the reservations declared by the extant law including the ratio in Indira Sawhney and others v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 217. In reply thereto the State in its counter in the writ petition stated that there are 7 Government Colleges in the State having an in-take capacity of 160 seats each and though 10 seats in each of the colleges are reserved, only a limited number of ministerial staff would desire to undergo B.Ed. training for future promotions being available on the basis of the ranking assigned in the BEDCET and the other seats are left to be filed by the candidates allotted by the Convenor of the BEDCET in the general pool. As an illustration it is stated that for the year 1997-98 of the 70 seats reserved by the impugned rule, only 22 ministerial staff had applied and the remaining 48 seats earmarked for this reservation quota have been thrown back to the general pool. Considering this contention, learned single Judge held that though a vague statement is made that the reservation by the impugned rule would result in 50% ceiling of reservation being exceeded, no substantation has been made by furnishing particulars and in the circumstances no case has been made out by the petitioner for invalidation of the reservation.
9. We have not been provided with further assistance on the matter at the hearing of the appeal. It is a settled principle that a statutory instrument is not to be invalidated on hypothetical assumptions or as an academic exercise. Nothing has been placed before us to demonstrate that 50% reservation has been exceeded. In the circumstances we decline to go into the question whether the reservation made by the impugned rule is also comprehend within the reservations made in favour of SC, ST and BCs under Article 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution of India, for the purpose of calculating the 50% ceiling on reservations. The factual substratum of the case is in opposite for consideration of this issue.
10. The other contention of the appellant is that inasmuch as this reservation falls outside the reservations permitted under Article 15 and 16 of the Constitution, there is no constitutional foundation for the exercise of State/Executive power in making these reservations. We are clearly of the view that the reservations by the impugned rule in favour of specified State Government employees is a species of the generic power of the State to make classification available to it under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. We see no ground to invalidate the impugned rule on this ground either.
11. In the result, we are of the view that there are no merits in any of the contentions on behalf of the appellant. The judgment of the learned single Judge is vitiated neither any error in the application of law nor in exercise of discretion. The writ appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs.