A rule providing for reservation of seats in an educational institution for children of employees of that institution is unconstitutional as it violates the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.

P. A. CHOUDHARY, J.

( 1 ) ). THESE two petitioners are seeking admission into the Andhra University College of Engineering Waltair against the quota of seats reserved for the children of the University employees. Admission to the Andhra University College of Engineering is based upon the marks obtained by the aspirants at the common entrance examination conducted by the Universities in Andhra Pradesh. These petitioners along with others had appeared for that common entrance examination and secured each 44 out of 150 marks. This was the same number of marks which one Nanda Kishore had secured. The petitioners allege that on the basis of these marks they, as well as Nanda Kishore, applied for admission into the above college under the quota of 16 seats reserved for the children of the staff working in the Andhra University. Clause 4 (D) (6) of the College prospectus issued by the Andhra University Engineering College for the year 1983-84 entitles the children of the teaching and non-teaching staff working in the University for such reservation It however appears that the Andhra University Syndicate at its meeting held on 16th September, 1983 found the petitioners and the above mentioned Nanda Kishore not to be qualified at the common entrance examination. That was on the assumption that the marks secured by them were below the minimum prescribed. The petitioners, therefore, along with the aforementioned Nanda Kishore had filed several writ petitions in this Court. A learned single Judge of this Court by his order dated 6-2-84 found the petitioners to be eligible and directed that their cases for admission into the above engineering college should be considered according, to the order of their respective merits. In obedience to the order passed by this Court, the University reconsidered the matter but rejected the petitioners claim for admission while it admitted the aforementioned Nanda Kishore into the Engineering College. The petitioners say that the above mentioned Nanda Kishore was admitted even by creating an extra seat while they were denied admission although they secured the same number of marks as Nanda Kishore did. They allege that Nanda Kishore was the son of the head of the Department of Civil Engineering and special favour had been shown to him by the University. They, therefore, pray that this Court may direct the University and the Engineering College to provide each one of them with a seat.

( 2 ) ). This writ petition is opposed by the University through a counter-affidavit filed by one of its Assistant Registrars.

( 3 ) IN the counter-affidavit it is broadly admitted that previously these two petitioners and Nanda Kishore had filed writ petitions and that this Court had earlier directed the University to consider the case of the petitioners on their merits. The counter-affidavit asserts that Nanda Kishore was given a seat on the basis of his merit measured by his Intermediate marks of 80. 5% secured in the group subject as against the lower marks of 60. 3% and 70. 6% secured by the first petitioner and the second petitioner respectively. The counter also says, that the first petitioner did not submit any application form for admission and that he merely submitted a representation and that the second petitioner though submitted an application on 27-7-1983 it was beyond 30-6-1983 which was the last date fixed for receiving applications. It was on the basis of the above counter-allegations the university had opposed the writ petition.

( 4 ) FROM the facts stated above I do not find it possible to uphold the contention of Sri Bhagiratharao, the learned counsel for the petitioners that his two clients should be given two seats merely on the basis of the earlier adjudication by this Court. The earlier adjudication appears as constructive res judicata. In my opinion the previous adjudication had nothing to do with the question which are now considered by the University and on the basis of which the petitioners claims

Click Here to Read the rest of this document