Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
M. Radha Sri Krishna vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, Education ... on 3 August, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1999(2)ALD458, 1999(2)ALT308
Author: V. Bhaskara Rao
Bench: V. Bhaskara Rao
ORDER
1. This writ petition is filed by a student, who is seeking admission to M.B.B.S. Course under a priority quota fixed for N.C.C. candidates, who participated in Republic Day Parade Camp at New Delhi with N.C.C. 'C' Certificate over 'B' and 'A' Certificate holders.
2. The substance of the affidavit of the petitioner is that he had his early education at Guntur and he has been allotted to Sandur Residential Composite Junior College, Sandur, Bellary District in Kamataka State on the basis of his performance at the All India Level Examination under Ment-cum-Mcans Scholarship Scheme of the Government of India. He studied from VIII Standard to XII Standard under the Central Board of Secondary Education Pattern and appeared for All India Secondary School Certificate Examination, equivalent to Intermediate Examination of the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh, in March, 1994 and passed the same in First Division having secured 70.5% of marks. He is entitled to be treated as a local candidate of Andhra University area as his father is a permanent resident of Guntur town in Andhra Pradesh.
(a) It is stated that the petitioner appeared for the EAMCET-95 Examination with Hall Ticket No.903961 and secured 11229 rank. There is a reservation of 0.25% of seats for N.C.C. cadets in this State and accordingly one seat in the Medical Colleges in three regions viz., Andhra University, Osmania University and Sri Venkateswara University areas is set apart for this category.
(b) It is asserted that he has been actively participating in the N.C.C. activities during his school days and secured 'A' Certificate in the year 1992; 'B' Certificate in 1994 and 'C' Certificate in March, 1995. He was chosen to lead the contingent from the State of Andhra Pradesh as its Troop Commander (Boys), Senior Division, for their participation in the Republic Day Parade on 26-1-1995 at New Delhi. He was selected for presenting the Guard of Honour to the Prime Minister as well as to Air Chief Marshall S.K. Kaul and a Certificate has been issued by N.C.C. Directorate in this regard.
(c) It is further stated that the first priority is given to those who participated in the International Level Festivals, Functions and Competitions as part of the Exchange Programme and second priority is given to those who participated in the National Level Competitions like Republic Day Parade Celebrations. A few among them would be ending up with 'C' Certificate. Hence, the petitioner, who is a 'C' Certificate holder and who participated in the National Level even i.e., Republic Day Celebrations of 1995 and had the credit of distinction of leading the National team for presenting the Guard of Honour to Air Chief Marshal S.K. Kaul and the Prime Minister, is entitled for priority and preference over other participants. The State Government has no power or jurisdiction to ignore a valid criteria from the zonal constitution or to include an irrelevant invalid criteria for selecting the candidates for admissions from among the N.C.C. cadets inasmuch as the Stale Government has clearly erred in ignoring the valid criteria of 'C' Certificate holders in preference to those who possess 'B' Certificates or 'A' Certificates in that order by framing the guidelines in GO Ms. No.254, ILM.F.W. Department, dated 28-4-1993, vvhereunder candidates who participated at the National Republic Day Parade are considered for admission irrespective of the Certificates they possess viz., 'C', 'B' and 'A' and the same is clearly arbitrary, unjust and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. N.C.C. Cadets who possess the 'C' Certificates are a class by themselves and they are liable to be treated as superior lot to those who possess 'B' or 'A' Certificates.
(d) It is further stated that as the University of Health Sciences failed to disclose the reasons for grant of admission to 6th respondent in spite of two representations from his father, the petitioner is unable to know and furnish the Medical College in which the said respondent lias been granted admission against one seat in Andhra University area. It is his information that she has participated in the Republic Day Celebrations Camp as a Junior Cadet but not as a Senior Cadet and she does not possess 'C' Certificate. Hence she could not have been preferred over him on the basis that she secured a better rank in the EAMCET Examination. Moreover, he is being treated as a non-local candidate for all three regions though he is entitled to be treated as a local candidate of Andhra University area. The University has no power or jurisdiction to adopt its own criteria or guidelines, but it has to adopt the criteria/guidelines adopted by the State Government while regulating the admissions in Engineering and other branches. Hence, the writ petition seeking a declaration that the action of the University of Health Sciences in granting admission to candidates having National Level Certificates for participating in Republic Day Parade Camp at New Delhi irrespective of their status of Certificate i.e., !C', 'B' and 'A' as unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary and unjust; to declare that the action of the States Government in issuing GO Ms. No.254, H.M.F.W. Department, dated 28-4-1993 in not giving preference to 'C' Certificate holders over 'B' and 'A' Certificate holders is arbitrary, unjust and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and consequently to direct the respondents to grant admission to the petitioner.
3. The writ petition is resisted by the respondents. In the counter affidavit of the Registrar of respondent No.3, all the material allegations of the petitioner are denied and it is averred that as per GO Ms. No.646, dated 10-7-1979, the petitioner is a non-local to all 3 Regions covered by Osmania University, Kakatiya University, Andhra University and Sri Venkateswara University Regions, on his own showing that he has studied from VIII Standard to XII Standard at Sandur, Bellary District of Kamataka State. In reply to para Nos.5, 6, 7 and 8 of the affidavit it is stated that the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued GO Ms. No.254, dated 28-4-1993 providing for quota under N.C.C. Sports and Games and physically handicapped candidates for admission into M.B.B.S. Course and that the University of Health Sciences is strictly following the above GO. It is then stated that the University has sent all the N.C.C. Certificates submitted by all the candidates who applied under N.C.C. quota, to the N.C.C. Directorate, Hyderabad, seeking fixation of gradations and a Gradation List has been prepared by the N.C.C. Directorate and accordingly all 3 candidates for 3 Universities were selected and admitted and they are as under:
Rank H.T.No. Region Grade College
1. 6261
902981 A.U. II R.M.C. Kakinada.
2. 8975 909516 D.U. II G.M.C. Hyderabad.
3. 3737 933629 S.V.U. II K.M.C. Kurnool.
It is then pointed out that the rank of the petitioner is 11229 and all 3 candidates selected under N.C.C. quota are well above his rank. As regards non-local candidates, it is stated that 15% unreserved seats in Osmania and Kakatiya University are filled with rank No.677; that in Andhra University and Nagarjuna University area with rank No.2389 and in Sri Venkateswara University area with rank No.1234 and hence there is no merit in the writ petition.
4. A separate counter is filed by respondent No.6 whose admission is challenged on the ground that she lias participated in the Republic Day Celebrations Camp as a Junior Cadet and that she does not possess !C' Certificate, whereas the petitioner possessed 'C' Certificate and he has to be preferred over respondent No.6. It is asserted by her that as per the guidelines for allotment of seats under the category of N.C.C. preference should be given for the rank obtained in the Enlrance Examination irrespective of the status of the Certificate i.e., 'C', 'B' and 'A'. It is her case that she secured 6261 rank in the EAMCET-95 Examination and she has N.C.C. Certificate and she has participated in the Republic Day Parade and Prime Minister's Rally held at New Delhi and she is a local candidate; whereas the petitioner secured a lower rank, viz., 11229 in EAMCET-95 Examination and he is not a local candidate although he is also N.C.C. Certificate holder, who has participated in the Republic Day Parade. It is asserted by her that the State Government is entitled to formulate guidelines for admitting candidates under various categories and she has been admitted in accordance with the guidelines and hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. Having regard to the above pleadings, the following points arise for consideration:
1. Whether the guidelines framed in GO Ms. No.254 (HMFW) Department, daled 28-4-1993 are arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution?
2. Whether the petitioner is a local candidate and whether he is entitled for preference over respondent No.6?
6. Point No. 6:
Sri Nuty Ram Mohan Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the guidelines under GO Ms. No.254 (HMFW) Department dated 28-4-1993 for not making provision for preference of 'C' Certificate holders over 'B' and 'A' Certificate holders and those of 'B' Certificate holders over 'A' Certificate holders and hence the guidelines are arbitrary, unjust and viotative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Tracing the history of N.C.C., he pointed out that the students at the High School level join N.C.C. and necessary training is imparted to them and those who pass certain tests, are granted 'A' Certificate and thereafter as they moved to the College, further training is given and 'B' Certificate is issued to those who attain certain level and then after further training, they are granted 'C' Certificate. He argued that it is inherent in its training and duration of various levels that a 'C' Certificate holder has to be ranked above 'B' and 'A' Certificate holder, but the impugned guidelines do not provide for such a preferential treatment and on the contrary, all the N.C.C. Certificate holders are sought to be grouped together. He pointed out that the guidelines framed for admissions to Engineering Colleges provide for such a preferential treatment and hence the impugned guidelines should be struck down being arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Turning to the case on hand Sri Rammohan Rao contended that the petitioner is not only a 'C' Certificate holder, but he has also participated in the Republic Day Parade on 26-1-1995 representing the State of Andhra Pradesh as its Troop Commander (Boys), Senior Division and he was selected for presenting the Guard of Honour to the Prime Minister as well as the Air Chief Marshall and hence he should have been preferred over respondent No.6. He relied upon a judgment in Sarath Prabhakar v. State Board of Technical Education, .
7. On the other hand Sri K.G.K. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for Health University and Sri D. Sudershan Reddy, learned Counsel for respondent No.6 have contended that under the impugned guidelines, there is no preferential treatment to 'C' Certificate holder over 'B' and 'A' holders and the criteria for admission even for the quota reserved for N.C.C., is the rank obtained in the Entrance Examination and accordingly respondent No.6 being the higher rank holder, has been given admission and she has already completed about 2 academic years. It is argued that a Writ of Mandamus cannot be issued in this regard and the Government in their wisdom framed the guidelines in the above manner and there is no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. A Judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Mohd. Ibrahim v. Government of A.P., 1989 (2) ALT 110, is relied upon.
8. I carefully considered the above contentions. The facts which are not in dispute are that the petitioner is a !C' Certificate holder and he participated in the Republic Day Parade on 26-1-1995 and he also presented Guard of Honour to the Prime Minister of India and also Air Chief Marshall. Respondent No.6, who is a 'A' Certificate holder also participated in the Republic Day Parade though as a Junior Cadet. It appears that a contingent is chosen for participation in the National events irrespective of the Certificate held by him. It is not necessary to go into the criteria for selection to participate in the National events. Suffice it to say that the petitioner is a 'C' Certificate holder and respondent No.6 is a 'A' Certificate holder. It is on this basis that the petitioner is claiming preference over her. It is also not in dispute that there is no provision in the impugned guidelines for such a preferential treatment; it looks as though all the Certificate holders, be it 'C', 'B' or 'A' Certificates, are pooled together for the" purpose of selection of candidates in the quota reserved for N.C.C. and they are selected on the basis of the rank obtained by them at the Entrance Examination. It so happened that the Health University forwarded the Certificate of all the candidates to N.C.C. Directorate with a request to prepare a Gradation List and accordingly a Gradation List has been prepared by the N.C.C. Directorate. It is evident from the counter of respondent No.3 that this Gradation List has been followed and admissions have been given accordingly and main criteria, however, appears to be the rank obtained by the candidate at the Entrance Examination. That is the factual background of the case and it has to be kept in view.
9. Sri Ram Mohan Rao contended that unlike the guidelines for admission to Engineering Colleges, a provision is made for preference of 'C' Certificate holders over others or 'B' Certificate holder over 'A' Certificate holders, whereas Sri K.G.K. Prasad contended that it is open to the Government to frame different guidelines for different courses. A Division Bench of this Court considered the guidelines for 'ECET' Examination in the judgment Sarath Prabhakar v. State Board of Tech. Education, cited (supra) and held:
"The rank at the ECET examination is to be relied upon only when there is a tie between the students having same level certificate. It is significant that the note refers to the situation when there is more than one candidate in a particular group. 'A' certificate is obtained at the school level itself, while 'C' certificate is obtained by putting three years of training at the college level. In the case of priorities set down to encourage the participation in N.C.C., the long duration of training must necessarily have a greater weight. Those holding 'C' 'B' or 'A' certificates were treated as one group each and the note refers to the resolution of tie in a group. Unless both the candidates are of the same level certificate, the question of preferring one who has a higher rank in the ECET examination, does not arise. Where the candidates have different certificates, whatever be the ranking in the ECET examination, one with the higher certificate has to be given priority. It follows that the appellant was entitled to the seat, but he has been unfairly kept out of it."
It is noteworthy that the above Judgment was rendered in view of a clear guideline indicating priority of N.C.C. 'C' Certificate holder over !B' and that of 'B' Certificate holder over 'A' and note appended thereto provided for the rank at the ECET examination to be criteria when there is a tie between the certificate holders. Admittedly the impugned guidelines do not provide for such a priority and hence I hold with respect that the above ratio is not applicable to this case.
10. The question is whether this Court can interfere in such a situation and examine whether different Rules can be framed for different courses and whether this Court can direct the authorities to frame the guidelines in a particular manner. A Division Bench of this Court in the judgment Mohd Ibrahim v. Govt. of A.P., cited (supra) held-
"Framing different rules for different courses cannot be said to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Once it is held that different rules can be framed for admission to different courses, it follows that it is open to the rule-making authority to provide or not provide any reservation or to provide different percentage of reservation, in different courses.
Merely because in the rules for admission to Engineering course there is reservation in favour of the physically handicapped/disabled and N.C.C., candidates, absence of such reservation for M.B.B.S. course does not amount to discrimination".
It is worthwhile to notice a judgment of the Supreme Court in Sandeep Barar v. State of Punjab, (1992 AIEC 132). It is held-
"The methodology for admission to the reserve seats for sportsmen/sportswomen is the function of the State and has to be decided by the State Government. It is the function of the executive to lay down the procedure for admission to the reserve categories. It is no doubt correct that this Court has the power of judicial review and if the validity of the Government instructions is challenged this Court can examine the same. The High Court was not justified in directing that different procedure than the one notified by the State Government be made applicable to the admissions. The Government Instructions dated August 6, 1986 had superseded the earlier Presidential Order dated August 30, 1984. The admissions for the Session 1989-90 were to be held on the basis of the gradations assessed under the 1986 Instructions. The High Court was not justified in issuing the directions that the 1984 Instructions and not in 1986 Instructions was to be followed. The legality of the 1986 Instructions was not challenged before the High Court. The High Court only gave its preference for the weightage system provided under the Presidential Order, dated August 30, 1984 and directed that admissions be regulated on that basis. This could not be done by the High Court".
Ultimately it was held that a Writ of mandamus cannot be issued to a legislative authority to make a law or not to make a law where it is competent. Following the ratio in the above Judgment, 1 hold that the impugned guidelines are not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and this Court cannot direct the Government to amend the guidelines as indicated by Sri Nuti Ram Mohan Rao. Point No.l is answered accordingly.
11. PointNo.2:
Sri Rammohan Rao strenuously contended that the petitioners has to be treated as a local candidate as his parents are permanent residents of Guntur and strong reliance is placed upon Chairman, University of Health Sciences v. K. Tulasiram, 1996 (3) ALD 1031 (DB), wherein it is held-
"Studies of the Writ petitioner-respondent in the local area have been interrupted by two years of his studies in the State of Haryana. He may not for the said reason be found to qualify as a candidate who studied in any of the educational institutions within the local area of the University consecutively for a period of not less than four years ending with the academic year in which he appeared for qualifying examination. A serious question, however, has arisen whether, notwithstanding his staying away from the local area for a period of two years in the State of Haryana, he was qualified as one who resided in the local area for a period of not less than four years immediately preceding the date of commencement of the relevant qualifying examination. One has to take notice, however, of the fact that the petitioner is a minor and that it is not in dispute that his parents have been residing in village Valasapalle falling within the local area. Writ petitioner's parents thus are residents of the local area and native of Valasapalle village.
It is not possible to hold that the writ petitioner-respondent is disqualified for being admitted as a local candidate in a college within the jurisdiction of the University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada".
12. In the above case the writ petitioner studied for a period of 2 years in the State of Haryana and thereby he failed to fulfil the requirement of study consecutively for a period of not less than 4 years ending with the academic year in which he appeared for qualifying examination; whereas in the case on hand the petitioner studied at Sandur of Bellary District in Karnataka State right from VIII Standard and he has also completed the qualifying examination i.e., Intermediate in March, 1994 from the same College. Thus, it is to be noted that it is not a case, of interruption by couple of years out of the qualifying period. Viewing from that angle, I hold that the above case is not helpful to the petitioner. Even otherwise his rank appears to be far below than those local candidates and hence he cannot succeed on this ground also. Respondent No.6 being a local candidate is not in dispute as already indicated above, she appears to have completed 2 years of her M.B.B.S. course and hence it is not considered just and proper to unsettle the admissions that were affected two years ago.
13. For the above reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed, but without costs.