IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, JJ.
Mala Mahanadu Aikya Vedika AP Represented by its State President Sri Gurram Ramarao – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh and 2 others – Respondents
W.P. (PIL) No.214 of 2021 and W.P.No.23662 of 2021
Decided on : 03-12-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 19, 14, 226 - Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 - Sections 3 and 15 - Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 - Section 2 (35) - Writ of Mandamus – Equality before Law – Power of High court to issue writs - Petitions are filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.1 in issuing G.O.Higher Education (CE.A2) Department whereby the rules pertaining to the admission into B-Category seats for various undergraduate courses in State have been revised for academic year 2021-22 without even taking into consideration the plight of majority number of unaided Degree Colleges insisting all colleges to fill up seats with 30 % of management quota instead of affording such concession to management to fill up those seats with convener quota in exercise of their choice and leaving management quota to the respective institutions by misinterpreting Sections 3 and 15 of Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 as illegal, unreasonable, unwarranted and violative of Article 14, 19 (1) (g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India, so also provisions of Act and rules framed thereunder and opposed to the new Education Policy announced by the Government of India in the recent past and set aside the same - Whether Rule 3 (iv) of the Rules 2021 based on any rationale, If not, whether taking over admissions of Category-B Seats by the Convener himself is hit by manifest arbitrariness - Consequently, Rule 3 of the G.O. is liable to be set aside as it is violative of Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India - Whether depriving the students belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, who are admitted in Category-B seats, from enjoying the benefits of State welfare schemes is arbitrary and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India – Held, clearly indicate that the major part of the educational institutions admitting students in undergraduate courses are unable to admit 70% of the students, which is less than 70% convener quota - Even if, any notification is issued for filling up management quota seats, it is difficult for the colleges to get any students admitted under management quota. In such case, issue of notification by the convener himself for filling up category-B seats is not based on any rationale or reason, thereby such act of the respondents can be described as manifestly arbitrary - Therefore, Rule 3 (iv) (b) (c) and 3 (v) of the Rules 2021 are hereby quashed declaring the rules as unreasonable, manifestly arbitrary and not based on any rationale. Consequently, the said Rule 3 (iv) (b) (c) and 3 (v) of the Rules 2021 are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents - Writ petition allowed in part.
ORDER :
M.Satyanarayana Murthy, J
1. These two petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.1 in issuing G.O.Ms.No.55 Higher Education (CE.A2) Department dated 07.10.2021 whereby the rules pertaining to the admission into B-Category seats for various undergraduate courses in the State have been revised for the academic year 2021-22 without even taking into the consideration the plight of majority number of unaided Degree Colleges insisting all the colleges to fill up the seats with 30 % of the management quota instead of affording such concession to the management to fill up those seats with convener quota in exercise of their choice and leaving the management quota to the respective institutions by misinterpreting Sections 3 and 15 of Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 (for short “Act No.5 of 1983”) as illegal, unreasonable, unwarranted and violative of Article 14, 19 (1) (g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India, so also provisions of the Act No.5 of 1983 and the rules framed thereunder and opposed to the new Education Policy announced by the Government of India in the recent past and set aside the same. Consequently, direct the respondent No.2 to fill up the 30 percent management quota seats by the private unaided Degree Colleges in the State and further direct respondent No.2 not to interfere in any manner with the prerogative of the managements of the private degree colleges as regards admissions into Undergraduate Course in the management quota i.e. 30% seats.
2. Though an additional ground is raised in W.P.(PIL) No.214 of 2021, as the relief claimed in both the petition is identical, we find that it is expedient to decide both these petitions by common order.
3. The petitioner in W.P.No.23662 of 2021 is an Association known as Rayalaseema Degree Colleges Association, represented by its President G.Venkata Reddy. Whereas, the petitioner in W.P.(PIL).No.214 of 2021 is Mala Mahanadu Aikya Vedika A.P., represented by its President Gurram Ramarao. Thus, the petitioners in both the petitions are Associations, registered under the Societies Registration Act.
4. The degree colleges in Rayalaseema region and other regions throughout Andhra Pradesh offering undergraduate courses in the stream of Science, Commerce and Arts, and catering the educational needs of all the students strictly adhering to the rules and regulations being framed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 without any laxity at any point of time. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.55 Higher Education (CE.A2) Department dated 07.10.2021 after commencement of online admissions and just before the allotment of seats, and the ratio 70:30 has been fixed. As the admissions and intake of the students is being done by following the statutory guidelines of respondent No.2 - State Council for High Education which is empowered for granting the permission to the Degree Colleges to run the Institutions, there was absolutely no necessity to issue the impugned G.O. to fill the up the seats in the ratio of 70:30 that too just before the allotment of seats into various degree colleges.
5. It is further contended that there are number of small unaided Degree Colleges in the State, which cannot afford to fill up the 30% management quota. Hence, it is imperative for the authorities to leave the choice of filling up the 30% under the management quota rather than insisting to fill the same through convener quota. Thus, it is incumbent on the authorities that the seats to be filled under the Management quota have to be left open for the respective colleges.
6. Already various unaided Degree Colleges have undertaken extensive exercise to furnish the information/details and documents as required by law and after the students have made online app
Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi
Budhan Choudhry v. The State of Bihar
Cellular Operators Association of India v. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India
EP. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India
Kathi Raning Rawat v. The State of Saurashtra
Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka
P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra
Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar
State of Tamil Nadu v. P. Krishnamoorthy
Sharma Transport v. State of A.P.
Shayara Bano v. Union of India
State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar
State of A.P. v. McDowell and Co.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.