S. B. SINHA, C. J.

( 1 ) THESE two Writ Petitions are filed by the students who had appeared for the engineering, Agricultural and Medical common Entrance Test - 2001 (EAMCET-2001) and who are aspiring for admission in engineering courses challenging the order of the Government in G. O. Rt. No. 550, Higher education (EC2) Department, dated 30-7-2001 whereby and whereunder the government in purported implementation of the Judgment of this Court dated 23-2-2000 in W. P. No. 26404 of 1999 and w. A. No. 795 of 2000 and batch and in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ritesh R. Shah v. Dr. Y. L. Yamul issued the impugned instructions (infra) to be followed in the present EAMCET counselling started from 30-7-2001. FACTS:

( 2 ) THE petitioners herein had appeared ineamcet 2001 (Engineering) and secured - 021550th, 04617th, 002168th, 021624th, 013715th, 001480th, 014259th and 013355th - ranks respectively.

( 3 ) ADMISSIONS into various Governmentengineering Colleges, University Colleges, regional Engineering Colleges and Private engineering Colleges are governed by the rules framed by the State in exercise of the power under Sections 3 read with 15 of the andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of capitation Fee) Act, 1983 (for short the Act) known as A. P. Professional Educational institutions (Regulation of Admissions into under Graduate Professional Courses through Common Entrance Test) Rules, 1993 (for short the Rules ) issued in g. O. Ms. No. 184, Education Department dated 20-8-1993.

( 4 ) THE Convenor of the Commonentrance Test Committee in terms of the rules is required to prepare state-wide common merit list , region-wise common merit list , minority community merit list , castewise common merit list in relation to sc/st/bcs. At the counselling, each candidate is called for interview in order of merit and is given a choice of institutions and branch depending upon the availability of seats at the point of time with due regard to the eligibility of the candidates, available seats, local area and reserved category etc. As per sub-rule (8) (a) of Rule 7 of the Rules, admission given to a candidate to a particular college in a branch based upon his option cannot be altered except by the committee. The rules do not contemplate any situation where a particular candidate belonging to any reserved community if secured a seat under the open category may be permitted to opt for a better course or college based upon his status of belonging to a reserved category which is commonly known as sliding.

( 5 ) BY reason of the impugned G. O. Rt. No. 550, a candidate belonging to a reserved community who had secured meritorious rank and who had chosen a branch or college as per his choice in open competition will be again permitted to slide to any better branch or college under the reserved quota and the resultant seat so vacated by such reserved candidate in the open competition will be treated as seat belonging to reserved communities.

( 6 ) THE process of counselling hascommenced on 30-7-2001 in respect of physically handicapped and others and in respect of open category it had commenced from 5-8-2001. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONERS:

( 7 ) MR. Nuty Ramamohan Rao, thelearned Counsel submitted that sliding rule as contemplated by the impugned G. O. would result in chaos and the entire process of admission in different disciplines in engineering Courses would be disturbed. The learned Counsel would contend that the seat vacated by a reserved category candidate who for the purpose of giving effect to Ritesh Shah (1 supra) is considered to be open category candidate should be allotted to the next meritorious candidate and not to a reserved category one. If such sliding in terms of the impugned G. O. , the learned Counsel would urge, is permitted, it would lead to preposterous consequences, as, in some cases, the seat vacated by reserved community candidate in open competition would go to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document