( 1 ) THE question for our decision in this writ petition is : whether reservation of seats either from general or supernumerary categories in any of the academic courses of the Osmania University in favour of the employees of the University or their dependants is valid.

( 2 ) THE petitioner, a law graduate, appeared for the entrance examination for admission to LL M. , Course (Mercantile Law branch) conducted by the Osmania University for the academic year 1986-87. She secured 49 per cent. She belongs to a Backward Community. Her grievance is that the third respondent who got only 44 per cent in the entrance examination was given a seat in the reserved quota meant for the children of the osmania University employees, but she was denied admission. The reservation of seats in favour of the employees of the Osmania University and their dependants is questioned by the petitioner on the ground that the same is violative of Articles 14, 15 (3) 45 and 46 of the Costitution of India. The first respondent is the Osmania University represented by its Registrar- and the second respondent is the Principal of the Post Graduate College of Law. The stand taken in the counter filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 is that admissions were made in accordance with the guidelines published earlier and as the petitioner did not challenge the validity of those guidelines, the present writ petition is liable to be thrown out on the ground of laches. The admission of the third respondent was against one of the supernumsrary seats created over and above the general seats. Three supernumerary seats were created in respect of all the six Branches of LL. M , in favour of the University employees and their children. As the petitioner is not eligible to compete for the supernumerary seats specifically created in favour of the University employees and their children, she is not entitled to the relief sought. The creation of supernumerary posts would defeat the rights of other candidates. The stand taken by the third respondent in the counter is that he applied for admission under the category of children of the Osmsnia Umversity employees since his mother is on the teaching staff of the University. His admision, therefore, cannot be challenged by the petitioner. There was no secrecy or illegality about the reservations in favour of the employees of the university sjnce the same was published in the Prospectus issued by the university.

( 3 ) SRI Lakshminarasimha contends for the petitioner that the provisions of the Osmania University Act do not confer power on the respondents to accoid any privileged position to the employees or their dependents, in the matter of admissions. The clarification of the employees and their dependents is unreasonable having no nexus with the object sought to be achieved.

( 4 ) ON the other had, Sri Gururaja Rao contends for the University that under the provisions of the Osmania University Act, 1989 the Academic council is entitled to make Regulations in regard to admission of students to university and if the Academic Council makes a regulation providing for reservation of a small percentage of seats in the constituent colleges of the osmania University, it caanot be said that it is outside the purview of the power of the University.

( 5 ) THE question of reservation of seats in favour of the employees of the University and their dependants came up for discussion in 1978 consequent on the representations made by the employees of the University. The osmania University addressed letters to several other Universities in order to ascertain whether any such reservation was provided for. It appears in the s. V. University, Tirupati and Bangalore University there is a provision for. reservation of seats in favour of the employees. The Academic Council of the Osmania University in its meeting held on 18-12-1981 considered certain recommendations and resolved as follows :"resolved that as recommended by the Standing Commi