1999 Supreme(AP) 1098

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : V.V.S.RAO
Laveti Suresh Babu - Appellant
Versus
Convenor, MCACET-98, Sri Krishna devaraya University, Anantapur - Respondent
Decided On : 12-01-99

Headnote:

Allotment of Seats - Andhra University issued a paper notification in Vaartha and eenadu newspapers inviting candidates to be present for third counselling for purpose of admission to additional seats which were created in two new private colleges and also for some seats which fell vacant due to admitted candidates joining some other courses - Pursuant to notification third counselling was conducted by Andhra University - In connection with second counselling when petitioner went to Tirupati, he came to know that Andhra University conducted third counselling by issuing a paper notification - Petitioner states that he comes from a remote village in West Godavari district and no newspaper is available and as such he could not go to Visakhapatnam, seat of University and be present during third counseling - According to him, University committed gross irregularity in not sending individual call letters to respective rank holders for third counselling also - Be that as it may, he submitted a representation to second respondent and as he did not receive any reply, he approached this court - He contends that action of andhra University is illegal and arbitrary – Held , In my Judgment in Court have considered aspect of legitimate expectation vis-a-vis a situation which is squarely governed by rules - In Punjab Communications Ltd - vs - Union of India, his Lordship, Hon ble sri Justice reviewed entire law of doctrine of legitimate expectation and held that a change in policy resulting in deprivation of legitimate expectation would only permit Court to test legality or reasonableness of policy and not beyond that - Referring to this judgment, Court have summarised principles of legitimate expectation as under - For a legitimate expectation to arise, decisions of administrative authority must affect person by depriving him of some benefit or advantage, which he had in past or been permitted by decision maker, which person can legitimately expect to be permitted to continue and person received assurances from decision maker that benefit will not be withdrawn without giving him an opportunity of advancing reasons - Procedural aspect of legitimate expectation relates to representation for hearing or other appropriate procedure - Substantive part of principle is that representation made for a benefit of substantive nature, will be granted or if person is already in receipt of benefit, it will be continued and not varied - Decision makers action to change policy in public interest, cannot be fettered by application of principle of substantive legitimate expectation - If authority proposes to defeat a person s legitimate expectation, authority should afford person an opportunity to make a representation in matter - From this point of view, doctrine imposed a duty to act fairly by taking into consideration all relevant factors relating to such legitimate expectation - Protection of legitimate expectation do not require fulfillment of legitimate expectation, where an overriding public interest required otherwise - If a person is denied benefit by virtue of a legitimate enactment or change in statutory rules, it is always taken that result of a change in policy by legislation, does not give rise to legitimate expectation - Principle of legitimate expectation certainly gives person sufficient locus standi to seek judicial review; and substantive legitimate expectation merely permits Courts to find out if change of policy resulting in defeating legitimate expectation was irrational or unreasonable - In instant matter, admittedly rules do not provide for sending individual call letters to candidates - Sending individual call letters for first and second counselling by all Universities was only for sake of convenience to restrict number of responding candidates to complete admissions within time frame - Further, when third counselling was conducted, treating all left over 3400 candidates equally or, in other words, giving same treatment to all of them, same does not permit a person to raise question of legitimate expectation - In Food corporation of India vs - Kamadhenu Cattle Feed industries, it was held that when all persons are treated equally, same cannot be termed arbitrary and doctrine of legitimate expectation does not arise - Writ Petition dismissed