Skip to content


S. Prakash Reedy and ors. Vs. Principal, Government Ayurvedic College, Hyderabad and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectConstitution
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petn. No. 985 of 1984
Judge
Reported inAIR1985AP110
ActsConstitution of India - Articles 15(4) and 371; Admission to Post Graduate Courses (M.D.) in Ayurveda at Government Ayurvedic College, Hyderabad Rules - Rules 6 and 7; Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutional (Regulation of Admissions) Order, 1974
AppellantS. Prakash Reedy and ors.
RespondentPrincipal, Government Ayurvedic College, Hyderabad and ors.
Appellant AdvocateL. Narsimha Reddy, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateGovt. Pleadere for ;M&H, ;T. Anilkumar and ;Nandini S. Bilwer, Advs.
Excerpt:
constitution - validity of admission - articles 15 (4) and 371 of constitution of india, rules 6 and 7 of admission to post graduate courses (m.d.) in ayurveda at government ayurvedic college, hyderabad and andhra pradesh educational institutional (regulation of admissions) order, 1974 - petition against entrance examination conducted by respondent for purpose of admission - petitioner contended that admission made by respondent were illegal and unconstitutional - petitioner applied for admission and opted only one subject for specialization and claimed admission given to students who have opted more than one subject against rule - there was no such rule under which it was mentioned that candidate can opt only one subject - held, contention raised by petitioner was not valid and admission.....order1. this writ petition is filed for the issue of a writ or order declaring the entrance examination conducted by the respondent, the principal. government ayurvedic college. hyderabad, for the purpose of admission to the m.d. (ayurvedic) course for the academic year 1983-84 as illegal and arbitrary and also declaring rule 6() of the rules of admission to m.d. (ayurvedic) course as illegal and unconstitutional and to direct the respondents to re-conduct the entrance test in the interest of justice. in support of the said petition sri. s. prakash reddy, has filed an affidavit wherein it is stated that the respondent. principal, government ayurvedic college. hyderabad called for applications for admission to the course m.d. (ayurvedic) for the academic year 1983-84. the rules for.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. This writ petition is filed for the issue of a writ or order declaring the entrance examination conducted by the respondent, the Principal. Government Ayurvedic College. Hyderabad, for the purpose of admission to the M.D. (Ayurvedic) Course for the academic year 1983-84 as illegal and arbitrary and also declaring Rule 6() of the Rules of Admission to M.D. (Ayurvedic) Course as illegal and unconstitutional and to direct the respondents to re-conduct the entrance test in the interest of justice. In support of the said petition Sri. S. Prakash Reddy, has filed an affidavit wherein it is stated that the respondent. Principal, Government Ayurvedic College. Hyderabad called for applications for admission to the course M.D. (Ayurvedic) for the academic year 1983-84. The Rules for admission to the said course were issued by the respondent. The admissions were to be made on the basis of the marks obtained by the candidates in the entrance examination conducted by the respondent. The petitioners who were eligible to apply made applications. The entrance examination was conducted on 28-12-1983.

2. It is stated that the Rules of admission issued by the respondent contemplate reservation of 50% of seats for M.D. (Ayurvedic) in favour of the candidates from outside the State. According to R.5, the number of seats are ten in Kayachikitsa (medicine) and ten in Salya Salakya and Prasuti Tantra (survey and Obstetrics) R.6(c) provides for 50% of the seats to be reserved in favour of the candidates from outside the State. Further R.7 contemplates the reservation of 85% of seats in favour of local candidates. Under R.18 (h) the candidates are required to give their option regarding the subject of P.G. Course in their applications which shall be final.

3. It is submitted that some of the Rules of Admission violate the provisions of the Constitution of India and the respondent while conducting the examination and making selection has violated certain rules and also acted in an arbitrary manner resulting in great injustice to the petitioners. That apart, the petitioners also pointed out the manner in which the examination was conducted. In para 5 of the affidavit it is pointed out that in the entrance examination printed question papers/ answer books were issued to the candidates without any number, seal of the college or signatures of the Invigilators. In every University examination or entrance examination, the answer books would be invariably numbered for the purpose of coding and decoding. The answer books would bear the seal of the institutions and every answer book issued to the candidate will be signed by invigilator. Ultimately it is stated that when the result came to them they found that they were not selected for admission to the M.D. (Ayurvedic) course.

4. It is further stated that the Rules of Admission, providing for 50% of the seats in favour of the candidates from outside the State are illegal and violative of Art. 371-D of the Constitution. According to the provisions of Art. 371-D and the Presidential Order issued thereunder, 85% of the seats in the educational institutions in the State are to be reserved in favour of local candidates. The only exception to this rule is the institution which is declared as a State wide institution. The respondent-institution in not a State wide institution. The very fact that Rule 7 prescribed reservation of 85% of the seats in favour of the local candidates establishes that the institution in question is not a Statewide institution. Any reservation which is not authorised by the Constitution cannot be sustained. If the seats have to be reserved in favour of candidates from outside the State, the reservation would exceed 50% and becomes unconstitutional. Already 14% 4% and 25% of the seats are reserved in favour of Scheduled caste, Scheduled tribe and Backward class candidates respectively. Reservation of 50% of the seats would contravene the provisions of the Constitution. Though the Rule says that the 50% of the seats in M.D. (Ayurvedic) (Surgery) are open for the candidates from outside the State, the other Rules clarify that it is a reservation. Therefore, the same is liable to be struck down as unconstitutional and illegal.

5. On behalf of the first respondent counter-affidavit is filed by Dr. M. Sarabhayya Sharma. Principal, Government Ayurvedic College, Hyderabad. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the allegation that Rule 6(c) provides 50% reservation of the seats in favour of the candidates residing outside the State is misconceived and denied. R.7 provides reservation of 85% of the seats in favour of local candidates, but the contention of the petitioners that 85% of the total number of seats should be reserved in favour of local candidates is contrary to rules. It is submitted that the question-cum-answer paper for the entrance test for admission to Post-Graduate Courses in Ayurveda for 1983-84 consists of 150 objective type of questions and for each question there are four answers. Every candidate has to indicate the correct answer out of the four answers provided against (a), (b), (c) and (d) for each question by writing the alphabet against which correct answer is pointed. The procedure is followed in all the examinations where objective type of examination is conducted. Therefore, there is no need for giving any serial number for the question papers and for the purpose of identity, the candidate has to indicate his roll number. The other allegations of similar nature are denied. In reply to para 6 of the affidavit it is submitted that the allegation that the rules of admission provide for 50% reservation of seats in favour of candidates from outside the State is incorrect and denied. As such, the Rules cannot be said to be illegal and violative of Art. 371-D of the Constitution. The contention of the petitioners regarding 50% reservations of the seats in favour of the candidates from outside the State is misconceived. There is no such reservation as alleged. The Rule only throws open 50% of the seats for outside candidates within the State. The provision of 50% seats thrown open for the candidates from outside the State is made because the Central Government is bearing the expenditure for this Faculty at the Post-Graduation level. The Government of India in their letter No. Z. 14013/10/S)-Ayurvedic Desk - I, dt. 20-10-1980, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare sanctioned the establishment of post-graduate course in 'Shalya Sakakya and Prasuti Tantra' at the Government Ayurvedic College, Hyderabad during 1980-81 as per the approved pattern of assistance and subject to certain conditions. Some of the said conditions are that the Department should be of an All India character and 50% seats should be kept for students from outside the State if forthcoming, and that the admission capacity should be restricted to twenty Post-Graduate students only in each department. In G.O. Ms. No. 176 M & H dt. 12-3-81 the State Government approved the above proposal and for creation of necessary staff and for incurring expenditure on equipment etc. Therefore, in G.O. Ms. No. 482 M & H dt. 156-82 rules have been framed for admission to first year of three years Post-Graduate Courses in M.D. (Ayurveda) in the Government Ayurvedic College, Hyderabad. According to these Rules, the number of seats in (a) Post-Graduate course in Kayachikitsa are ten, and (b) Post-Graduate course in Salya Salakya and Prasuti Tantra are ten. Rule 6 deals with special reservations. According to Rule 6(a), 14% 4% and 25% of the total number of seats available in each Department shall be reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward classes respectively. According to Rule 6(b) the seats reserved for scheduled castes shall be made available to the Scheduled tribes and vice versa if qualified candidates are not available in the category. The seats reserved for both scheduled castes and scheduled tribes shall be made available to the candidates in general pool if qualified candidat4es belonging to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes are not available. Therefore it is stated that R.6(c) which deals with reservation of ten seats in each Department to open competition, Backward classes, scheduled castes and scheduled tribes is relevant and reads as follows: -

'6(c): 50% seats for M.D. (Ayurveda) in salya Salakya and Prasuti Tantra are open for candidates from outside the State still the course is run as a centrally sponsored scheme'.

SUBJECT No. of Seats O.C. B.C. S.C. S.T.______________________________________________________________________________________Kayachikitsta 10 6 3 1 --Salya Salakya &Prasuti; Tantra: 10 6 3 1 --B.C. (A)....1B.C.(B).....1B.C.(C)......-- B.C. (D)....1______3______ Provided that the number of O.C.B. and S.C. candidates selected from outside the State 'in sot' more than 3, 1 and respectively.'

6. It is further stated that the scheme for introducing the Post-Graduates course under Shalya Salakya and Prasuti Tantra is under Central assistance during the sixth plan which ends by 1984-85. With reference to the condition for the Government of India that 50% seats are kept open for students from outside the State if forthcoming, a proviso is made in R.6(c) that the number of O.C., B.C., and S.C. candidates selected from 'outside the State' is not more than 3, 1 and 1 respectively. Therefore, according to these Rules, out of the total ten seats, five seats are kept open for the candidates from outside State. All the applicants from the outside State belong to O.C. category only and there are no applicants who belong to B.C., S.C., S.T. community. According to the proviso under Rule 6(c) out of the five seats all allotted to candidates selected from outside the State, the maximum number of seats for Open Competition, Backward Classes and Scheduled Castes should not be more than 3, 1 and 1 respectively. In case there are no candidates from B.C. or S.C. category from outside the State, the reservation in favour of the B.Cs. and S.Cs. has to be maintained as required in Rule 6(a). So only the three seats which are earmarked for O.C. candidates in the quota kept open for outside State, have been filed up by three O.C. candidates of outside as per the merit list. Thus, this rule of reservation as prescribed in the rules of admission is within the permissible limit and is not unconstitutional as alleged. The Rules have been followed strictly and no injustice has been caused to any person. It is true that the petitioner along with another candidate belong to Kerala State have been included in the list of provisionally selected candidates but the same was not communicated as provided in R.16 (g). On scrutiny it was noticed that the Rule of reservation as per R.6 (a) has not been correctly followed. So the provisional list was revised under R.16 (L) of the admission rules which reads as follows: -

'The Selection Committee has got right to review the selection in case of any error, mis-representation, fraud or glaring injustice done.'

7. Therefore, the provisional selection was revised and selection made strictly in accordance with the Rules. Only when intimations are sent to the candidates in accordance with R.16 (g) of the Rules of Admission, the selection process starts. The petitioners have proceeded on the wrong presumption that R.6(c) of the Admission Rules provides for 50% reservation in favour of candidates from the outside State. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for by them.

8. On behalf of the 18th respondent, the State of A.P. on Sri C.V.S. Rama Rao, who is the Assistant Secretary to Government, Medical and Health Department has filed counter affidavit. He has stated that under R.6(c) 50% seats for M.D. (Ayurveda) in Salya Salakya and prasuti-Tantra are open for candidates from outside the State till the course is run as a centrally sponsored scheme. It is therefore apparent that R.6(c) throws open 50% of the seats to candidates from outside State so long as the Government of India meets the expenditure. This is only a temporary feature. The government of India is meeting all the expenditure for ten seats in Salya Salakya and Prasuti Tantra on condition of making provision for candidates outside the State. R.6(c) provides seats for candidates outside the State till such time as the scheme is financed by the Government of India. R.7 provides for reservation of 85% of the seats in favour of local candidates after excluding the seats reserved for candidates from outside the State. For purposes of R.7, seats secured by candidates on merit will have to be excluded for applying 85% reservation. Accordingly after excluding three seats secured by outside candidates 15% of seven i.e. one seat was given to non-local candidate. For the purpose of working out local and non-local, outside candidates are excluded. Then in the affidavit they have referred to the objective type of question-cum-answer paper in the entrance test. It is perhaps not necessary to deal with that aspect. It is submitted that the allegation that the Rules of Admission provide for 50% reservation of seats in favour of candidates from outside the State are illegal and violative of Art. 371-D of the Constitution is not correct. As a matter of fact, according to R.6(c) of the Admission Rules, 50% of the seats are open for the candidates from outside the State. The provision of 50% seats thrown open for the candidates from outside the State is made because, the Central Government is bearing the expenditure for this faculty at the post-graduation level. The Government of Indian their letter No. Z14013/10/80 Ayurvedic Desk I dt. 20-11-1980, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare sanctioned the establishment of post-graduate course in Shalya Shalakya and Prasuti Tantra' at the Government Ayurvedic College, Hyderabad during 1980-81 as per the approved pattern of assistance and subject to certain conditions. Some of the said conditions are that the Department should be of an All India character and 50% seats should be kept for students from outside the State if forthcoming, and that the admission capacity should be restricted to twenty post-graduates students only in each department. Keeping in view the above conditions, Rules for admission to post-graduate courses in Ayurveda were issued. The facts which are stated in the counter affidavit of the first respondent are also reiterated here which need not be referred to. The petitioners have proceeded on the wrong presumption that R.6(c) of the Admission Rules provides for 50% reservation in favour of candidates from outside the State. Further, the allegations with regard to the entrance examination are also baseless and incorrect. Therefore, they are not entitled to any relief prayed for by them and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

9. Counter affidavit is also filed in behalf of respondents 2, 5, 6, 7 and 9 to 12. One Dr. M. Narender has filed an affidavit wherein it is stated that the allegations that the Rules of Admission are violative of the Constitution of India and that the selection is arbitrary are denied. The entrance examination was held taking all the necessary precautions. The results reflect the true merit of the candidates. The allegation that the petitioners are meritorious and first class students of the degree level is fallacious. It is stated that the admissions are made properly. The reservations for outside State candidates is permissive being made on merit and hence valid. The other reservations made in favour of scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and backward classes are constitutionally valid and not open to challenge. The selection committee has power under R.16 (L) to review and rectify the errors committed in selection. Pursuant to the selections made, the respondents appeared before the Principal who having found them to be medically fit selected them. They paid the fees and jointed the classes and their attendance is being marked. All the averments in the affidavit which has not been specifically denied may be deemed to have been denied. There are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

10. Another affidavit on behalf of respondents 13 to 15 is filed and this affidavit is supported by Dr. W. Ramesh. It is stated in the counter affidavit that M.D. Ayurveda in the speciality of Salya Salakya and Prasuthi Tantra is the creative of Central Government sponsored scheme. It is not specifically declared as such in the A.P. Educational Institute Regulations of Admissions Order, 1974. It is an all India course and hence the provisions of the presidential Order 1974 under Art. 371-D are inapplicable. The selections are made on the basis of overall merit and they were found qualified. For such posit graduate professional courses, merit has to be the sole criterion. Selections were validly made. They were found medically fit and are attending classes. There are no merits in the writ petition and the same deserves to be dismissed.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioners Sri L. Narasimha Reddy, mainly raised three points for consideration in this writ petition. The first submission is with regard to the validity of Rule 6(c) of the Rules for Admission to the first year of the three years post-graduate course M.D. (Ayurveda) in the Government Auyrvedic College, Hyderabad. The second submission is in respect of the conduct of the examination. The third submission is that while making the selection, some of the rules are violated as a result of which the very selection is vitiated.

12. On the first point, the learned counsel submitted that Rule 6(c) is a rule of reservation. This Rule of reservation is contemplated to be issued under Art. 371-D of the Constitution of India. Art. 371-D which is relevant reads as under: -

371 D. Special provisions with respect to the State of A.P. (1) The President may be order made with respect to the State of A.P. provide, having regard to the requirements of the State as a whole, for equitable opportunities and facilities for the people belonging to different parts of the State, in the matter of public employment and in the matter of education, and different provisions may be made for various parts of the State sub-article

(2) of Article 371-D which is relevant for the purpose of this case reads as under: -

371 D (2): An order made under clause (1) may in particular: -

(a) xxx and (b) xxx

(b) Specify the extent to which, the manner kin which and the conditions subject to which, preference or reservation shall be given or made.

(i)xxxx xxxx xxxxx

(ii) in the matter of admission to any such University or other educational institution referred to in sub-clause (b) as may be specified in this behalf in the order, to or in favour of candidates who have resided or studied for any period specified in the order in the local area in respect of such cadre, University or other educational institution, as the case may be.'

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that under this Article with regard to the reservations to be made for the candidates and with regard to the educational institution, University etc., the President of India has issued an order called the A.P. Educational Institution (Regulation of Admissions) Order, 1974, hereinafter referred to as 'the Admissions order, 1974. This Order has been made by the President of India in exercise of the powers conferred by Clauses (1) and (2) of Art. 371D of the Constitution of India with respect to the State of A.P. Cl. (3) defines 'local area'. Under Clause (4) 'Local candidate' is defined. Clause 5 deals with reservation in non-Statewide Universities and educational institutions wherein it is stated that admissions to eighty-five percent of the available seats in every course of study provided by the A.P. The Nagarjuna University, the Osmania University, the Kakatiya University or Sri Venkateswara University or by any other educational institution (other than a State-wide University or a State wide education Institution) which is subject to the control of the State Government shall be reserved in favour of the local candidates in relation to the local area in respect of such University or other educational institution. The learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that when the Presidential Order of 1974 contemplates reservation of 85% of seats for local candidates in universities and other educational institutions, it is not open for the Government Ayurvedic College, Hyderabad to provide more than 50% of seats to non-local candidates from outside the State. Therefore, the very R.6(c) is invalid and deserves to be quashed. The learned Government Pleader submitted that 50% of the seats are not reserved by the first respondent or by the State for candidates from outside the State. What is submitted by him is that 50% of the seats are open to the candidates from outside the state and if they secure up to 50% in the available seats, 85% of the seats will be worked out as per R.7 of the Admission Rules. It may be a fact that the seats on the basis of the highest marks secured by the candidates from outside the State within the 50% of the seats allotted to them on the whole may work out to 15%. But the provisions made is such that 85% of the seats will be worked out after allotting the seats to the candidates from outside the state. Therefore, there is no infringement of the provision of the reservation in non-State wise institution.

13. The learned counsel for the other respondents Mr. Anil Kumar filed written arguments wherein he has mainly stated that there are only more sweeping allegations in the writ petition and the Court cannot be persuaded to accept such allegations.

13. Now, it is to be examined whether the Admission Rules framed contrivance the Constitutional Provision of Art. 371-D or not. The relevant portion of Article 371-D lays down special provisions with respect to the State of Andhra Pradesh. These provisions are made having regard to the requirements of the State for equitable opportunities and facilities for the people belonging to different parts of the State in the matter of public employment, etc. It is in exercise of the powers conferred to as 'Admissions Order, 1974'. Clause 2(a) of the Admissions Order, 1974 defines 'available seats' thus:

'(a) 'available seats', in relation to any course of study, means the number of seats provided in that course for admission at any time after excluding those reserved for candidates from outside the State

Sub-clauses (b) and (c) define 'Local area' and 'Local Area' while clause (4) is in respect of 'Local candidates'. Clause (5) deals with reservation in non-Statewide universities and educational institutions. It says that admissions to 85% of the available seats in every course of study......shall be reserved in favour of the local candidates. Clause (6), which deals with reservation in State-wide Universities and State-wide educational institutions similarly states that 85% of the 'available seats' shall be reserved for local candidates. Thus, the reservation under clauses (5) and (6) is only from out of the 'available seats', which means those that the available after excluding 50% seats reserved for candidates from outside the State.

15. In G.O. Ms. No. 482 M & H dt. 15-6-1982, the Government of Andhra Pradesh ahs approved the Rules of Admission to Post-Graduate Courses (M.D.) in Ayurveda at Government Ayurvedic College, Hyderabad (hereinafter called 'Admission Rules'). Rules 6 and 7 of those Admission Rules roughly correspond to Clauses (5) and (6) of the Admissions Order, '74. Rule 6 deals with 'Special Reservations'. It is clause (a) states that 14% k4% and25% of the total number of seats available in each department shall be reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward classes respectively. Clause (b) of R.6 permits making the seats available to the scheduled tribes if qualified scheduled caste candidates are not available and vice-versa. It also permits the seats being made available to the candidates in the general pool, if qualified candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes are not available.

Now, it is clause (c) that speaks of the 50% reservation for candidates from outside the State. There is also a proviso added to this clause stating that the number of O.C., B.C., and S.C., candidates selected from 'outside the State' shall not be more than 3, 1 and 1 respectively. It is rule 7 that deals with reservation if favour of 'local candidates'. Rule 7 states that admission to 85% of the seats after excluding the seats reserved for candidates from outside the State shall be reserved in favour of local candidates. Thus, rule 6(c) brought in a reservation of 50% seats for candidates from outside the State while Rule 7 reserved 85% of the seats after excluding these reserved for candidates from outside the State for 'local candidates'. Therefore, to work out this 85% reservation under rule 7, it is very much essential to exclude the 50% seats reserved for candidates from outside the State. In this background it cannot be said that the Admission Rules contravene the provisions of the Admission Order, 1974 made under Article 371-D of the Constitution.

16. It is now contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that this 50% reservation of seats for candidates from outside the State and the other reservations under rule 6(a), namely 14% 4% and 25% for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Back3ard Caste respectively, put together would come to a total reservation of 95% and thus hit by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Balaji v. State of Mysore : AIR1963SC649 where it is held that a special provision under Article 15(4) should be less than 50% and the reservation of 68% made therein was inconsistent with the concept of the special provision authorised by Art. 15(4) and thus such a provision is a fraud on the Constitutional power. In this context, it is to be noted that the 50% reservation under R.6(c) for candidates from outside the State can by no stretch of imagination be treated as the one under Art. 15(4) of the Constitution. The present course for admissions is one sponsored and approved by the Government of India in its letter dt. 20-11-80. In the letter while approving the upgradation of the two departments for Post Graduate Training and Research in 'Shalya Salakya' and Prasuti Tantra' the Government of India has laid down certain conditions for the said upgradation. Among other conditions, condition No. (v) in para 2 states that the department should be of all India character and 50% seats should be kept reserved for students from outside the State, if forthcoming. Pursuant to the approval by the Government of India, the Government of Andhra pradesh issued G.O. Ms. No. 170 M & H dt. 12-3-1981 according sanction for creation of necessary posts on account of upgradation of the two departments. One can in fact, gather the very origin for this 50% reservation of seats for candidates from outside the State from the Presidential Order made under Art. 371-D of the Constitution namely the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions) Order, 1974. (Briefly referred to as 'the admissions order 1974). Clause 2(a) of the Admissions order, 1974, defines 'available seats' as meaning the number of seats provided in that course for admission after excluding those reserved for candidates from outside the State. The concept of reservation for candidates from outside the State is totally and absolutely different from the reservations under Article 15(4) of the Constitution, which are made on the basis of caste, namely backward class, scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. Therefore, the reservations made on the basis of community in accordance with Article 15(4) of the Constitution are altogether different and distinct from this concept of reservation 50% of seats for candidates from outside the State. It is only in respect of reservations made under Article 15(4) of Constitution the Supreme Court in the referred case that such reservations extending to 68% was inconsistent with the concept of the special provision authorised by Art. 15(4) of the Constitution and that such a reservation should in no case exceed 50%. In this view of the matter the judgment of the Supreme Court has no applicability to the instant case since the reservations made before under R.6 (a) of the Admission Rules in accordance with Art. 15(4) are only 43% and not 93% as contended.

17. It is next submitted that as per R.7 of the Admission Rules, 85% of the Seats are reserved for local candidates and therefore the 50% reservation for candidates from outside the State is inconsistent with the present rule and that this rule has to be given effect to in preference to the reservation for candidates from outside the State. This submission is patently a mis-conception because the very rule 7 says that 'admission to 85% of the seats after excluding the seats reserved for candidates from outside the State shall be reserved in favour of local candidates.......' Therefore, there is a specific and clear exclusion of the candidates from outside the State for whom there is a reservation of 50% of seats made. It is only from out of the balance 50% of seats that this reservation of 85% for local candidates has to be worked out. Thus, there is no inconsistency whatsoever between Rule 7 and Rule 6(c) in so far as the reservations are concerned. On the other hand both the rules, namely Rule 6(c) and Rule 7, are in conformity with each other. In this view of the matter, rule 6(c) cannot be held to be either unconstitutional or invalid.

18. The next point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is with regard to the manner in which the examination was conducted. He submitted that in the entrance examination printed question paper/answer book were issued to the candidates without any number, seal of the college or signature of the invigilator. It is stated in the affidavit that the normal practice is that on every answer script there invariably appears a number for the purpose of coding and decoding, besides bearing the seal of the institution along with the signature of the invigilator. The object behind taking these precautions is to avoid tampering or replacement of answer scripts. It is also stated that the petitioners are first class and meritorious students at the degree level and they all fared well. It is also stated in the affidavit that the answer papers were substituted and that the influential candidates have seen that they secured more marks and the petitioners were pushed down by tampering with the papers. As against these allegations in his counter-affidavit in para 4 the Principal of the College stated that the entrance test consisted of 150 objective type questions and for each question there were four suggested answers, out of which the candidate is required to indicate the correct one. The candidate was to write his roll number on the title page of the question paper and that this is the procedure followed in all objective type examinations. There, according to the affidavit, is no need to give any serial number on the question paper and for purposes of identity the candidate has to indicate his roll number. All the question/answer papers were printed and bound and before their distribution the facsimile of the signature of the Dy. Director was affixed on them. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that there does not arise the question of issuing additional answer sheets and thus there is absolutely no need for the invigilator to sign on the additional sheets. The allegation that the petitioners were 1st class and meritorious, students has no relevance. The allegation that the papers were tampered or replaced is absolutely baseless and is denied. It is further submitted in paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit that soon after the examination at 1-00 p.m., on 28-10-83 was over, the Principal of the College bundled all the answer papers, sealed them and sent to the Directorate through the Deputy Director. Valuation of the papers was immediately taken up by the appointed valuers under the supervision of all the Deputy Directors and direct on the same day. Further the Selection Committee, which conduct the examinations, is a necessary party to the writ petition and the non-joinder of the Committee renders the writ petition liable for dismissal.

19. The above allegations and counter-allegations clearly show that the test consisted of objective type questions suggesting as many as four answers, (a), (b), (c) or (d) and the candidate was to indicate one out of these four as the correct answer on the very question paper. Thus, the question-paper is the same for answer-scripts. In the fact of the various facts stated in the counter-affidavit it cannot be said that the procedure and manner in which the examination is conducted calls for any interference.

20. The learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that the basis and method of selections followed was not proper. He submitted that each candidate could only opt for one speciality and not more than one. In the instant case there were candidates that opted for more than one speciality and there are also cases where a candidate changed the opted speciality and secured seat in that changed speciality. The contention of the learned counsel is that the applications of those who opted for more than one speciality and those who later on changed the opted sepciality are to be ignored and they could not have been considered because the option once exercised is final as per R.16 (h) of the Admission Rules.

21. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the candidates have opted for only one speciality and that option is final. But at the same time there is no bar to give more than one application giving another option in that second application. In the face of this submission of the learned Government Pleader except academic interest there does not seem to be any substance in this last contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners and consequently I do not think it necessary to express any opinion on this point.

22. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No. costs. Advocate's fee Rs.250/-.

23. Petition dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //