Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : V.MADHAVA RAO
S.Prakash Reddy - Appellant
Versus
Principal, Government Ayurvedic College, Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 04-23-84
ADMISSION RULES - VALIDITY - RESERVATION OF SEATS - RULE 6 (C) OF THE RULES OF ADMISSION TO M. D. (AYURVEDIC) COURSE - WHETHER VIOLATIVE OF ART. 371-D OF THE CONSTITUTION - CONDUCT OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATION - MANNER OF SELECTION - WHETHER PROPER.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the validity of Rule 6 (c) of the Rules of Admission to M. D. (Ayurvedic) Course, alleging that it violated Art. 371-D of the Constitution. The petitioner also raised concerns about the manner in which the entrance examination was conducted and the selection process.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Rule 6 (c) of the Admission Rules, which provided for 50% reservation of seats for candidates from outside the State, was not violative of Art. 371-D of the Constitution. The court found that the reservation was made in accordance with the conditions laid down by the Government of India for the upgradation of the two departments for Post Graduate Training and Research in Shalya Salakya; and Prasuty Tantra. The court also found that the manner in which the examination was conducted and the selection process was proper.
Issues: 1. Whether Rule 6 (c) of the Rules of Admission to M. D. (Ayurvedic) Course was violative of Art. 371-D of the Constitution? 2. Whether the manner in which the entrance examination was conducted was proper? 3. Whether the selection process was proper?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the reservation of 50% seats for candidates from outside the State under Rule 6 (c) of the Admission Rules was not violative of Art. 371-D of the Constitution. The court found that the reservation was made in accordance with the conditions laid down by the Government of India for the upgradation of the two departments for Post Graduate Training and Research in Shalya Salakya; and Prasuty Tantra. The court also found that the reservation was consistent with the Presidential Order made under Art. 371-D of the Constitution, namely the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions) Order, 1974. 2. The court found that the manner in which the entrance examination was conducted was proper. The court noted that the examination consisted of objective type questions and that the candidates were required to indicate the correct answer on the question paper itself. The court also found that the question papers were printed and bound and that the facsimile of the signature of the Dy. Director was affixed on them before distribution. 3. The court found that the selection process was proper. The court noted that the candidates were required to opt for one speciality and that the option once exercised was final. The court also found that there was no bar to giving more than one application giving another option in that second application.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that Rule 6 (c) of the Admission Rules was not violative of Art. 371-D of the Constitution, that the manner in which the entrance examination was conducted was proper, and that the selection process was proper.
( 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 (c) 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 and 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 sets 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 is not a Statewide 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 Backwardclass candidates respectively. Reservation of 50% of the seats would contravene the provisions o
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
