JUDGMENT

The short question that falls for our consideration in the present appeal is whether the Evening Law College in question affiliated to the Osmania University conducts "part-time course of study" within the meaning of paragraph 11 (c) of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions) Order, 1974, hereinafter referred to as the Order. If the answer is in the affirmative, the order is not applicable to the said college and the reservation of 85 per cent of the seats in favour of the local candidates is illegal. The.question arises in the following context.

2. According to paragraph 5 of the order admission to 85 per cent of the available seats in the said college has to be reserved in favour of the local candidates leaving only 15 per cent of the seats for the non-local candidates. There is no dispute that the writ petitioners before the High Court, who are respondents before us, were not the local candidates. They were employees of the High Court and of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. Apprehending that they will have no chance of admission to the said college in the quota of 15 per cent of the seats, they approached the High Court by way of petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution for striking down paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the order. It appears that the Division Bench of that Court had earlier dismissed a petition which was filed by one of the present writ petitioners. The contention raised in the said petition was that the course of study provided in the said college was a part-time course solely for the benefit of the employed persons and, therefore, by virtue of paragraph 11 (c) of the order, the said course was exempt from its provisions, and as a result the seats available for the course were free from the reservation in favour of the local candidates. This contention was negatived by the Division Bench holding that the course offered by the college was a full-time course. The present petition was, therefore, brought before a Full Bench and the Full Bench by the impugned decision reversed the earlier decision of the Division Bench and held that the said course was a part-time course and not a full-time course and was hence, outside the scope of the order by virtue of paragraph 11 (c) of the same. The impugned decision thus held that reservation made by the order in favour of the local candidates was not applicable to the seats for the law course in the said college. In view of its decision on the nature of the course, the Full Bench did not decide the virus of paragraphs 3,4, 5, 6 and 8 of the Order, nor are we concerned with it in the present appeal. Hence, the short question stated at the outset.

3. There is no dispute that the college, though called Evening Law College, and imparts tuition to the students during evening hours, is in all respects on par with the so called day colleges. The duration of hours of study in the college is the same as that of the day college, viz., three hours. It offers the same syllabus as does a day college and its course is spread over the same number of years as is the course of a day college. The students appear for the same examination conducted by the same University and get the same law degree as do the students of the day college. What is further, the entrance examination held for admission is common to all the colleges including the Evening College in question. The only difference between the present college and the other colleges is that the admission to the present college is restricted only to the employed persons. it is, therefore, clear that the law course offered by the present college is asmuch as a full-time course as the one offered by any other law college. It is for this reason that the Division Bench of the same Court had earlier held that the law course offered by the present college was not a part-time course.

4. The only ground on which the Full Bench has upset the reasoning of the Division Bench is that the stud