Back
2024 Supreme(Telangana) 1199
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUJOY PAUL, NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, JJ.
M.Karthik - Appellant
Versus
Consortium of NLUs - Respondent
Writ Petition No.13583 of 2024
Decided on : 27-09-2024
For the Appellant : Sri J. Dheraj Reddy
For the Respondent: Sri A. Kranthi Kumar Reddy, G.P. for Law and Legislative Affairs
A university must be under the control of the state for domicile reservation provisions to apply; mere residency does not confer rights to consider for a quota.
Headnote:(A) National Academy of Legal Studies and Research University Act, 1998 - Section 5-A - Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 - Section 95 - Challenge to constitutionality of provisions regarding domicile reservations in higher education - Petition dismissed on the basis that NALSAR University is not under the control of the state and does not fall under the ambit of the Reorganisation Act. (Paras 11-22)
(B) Admission Regulations - Importance of candidate opting for domicile quota - The court noted that failure to indicate domicile preference does not warrant entitlement to the quota when the allocation has already been made. (Paras 22, 21)
(C) Control of State - The court clarified that the application of the Presidential Order is dependent on the university being under the state’s control. (Paras 18-20)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner’s rank and domicile status affecting admission. (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding domicile quota eligibility. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. university's stance on application and quota eligibility. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. state's control over nalsar university and related precedents. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. interpretation of article 371-d and presidential order. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. constitutionality of nalsar act in relation to reorganisation act. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 7. precedential considerations based on related judgments. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 8. resisting the induction of the petitioner due to existing admissions. (Para 21) |
| 9. petition dismissed due to lack of substance. (Para 22) |
ORDER :
Sujoy Paul, J.
In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the constitutionality of Section 5-A of the National Academy of Legal Studies and Research University Act , 1998 (as amended by Act No.7 of 2021) (for short, NALSAR Act). The challenge is also mounted to G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 04.12.2014, but at the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner abandoned the relief against the said GO.
Facts:
2. The petitioner is resident of Tirupati and domicile of State of Andhra Pradesh. He appeared in Common Law Admission Test (CLAT), 2024 conducted by consortium of National Law Universities (NLUs) i.e., respondent No.1 and secured all India rank 205. On 20.05.2024, the petitioner informed respondent No.1 that CLAT admission process did not follow the mandate ingrained in Section 95 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 (for short, Reorganisation Act). Since NALSAR University is situated in Telangana and it was joint capital of successor states of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana for a period of ten years, in view of Section 95 of the Reorganisation Act, the reservation which was prevailing at the time of bifurcation of state should have followed for a period of ten years. This was required to be done in view of conjoint reading of Article 371-D of the Constitution of India read with Section 95 of the Reorganisation Act. The respondents have not extended the benefit of domicile reservation to the petitioner in NALSAR.
Contention of the petitioner:
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, fairly submitted that no doubt in the relevant application the petitioner did not mention about his choice of domicile, the fact remains that the application discloses that he is domicile of State of Andhra Pradesh. Thus, this technicality that the petitioner did not opt for domicile quota will not make much different. The mandate of the act must be honoured and technicality cannot wipe out the benefit flowing from Section 95 of the Reorganisation Act.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner informed that the petitioner has already taken admission in The West Bangal National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata, West Bengal i.e., respondent No.4, and he is presently studying in the first semester. However, the petitioner has a preferential right to get a seat in NALSAR being domicile of Andhra Pradesh. It was further argued that respondent Nos.1 and 2 should have accommodated the petitioner in the last list viz., provisional 5th list by withholding the seat of less meritorious candidate in the petitioner’s category. They did not include the name of the petitioner in the provisional 5th list which is bad in law.
5. By taking this Court to impugned substituted Section 5-A of the NALSAR Act, it is submitted that in the said section for the words ‘Andhra Pradesh’, the word ‘Telangana’ was substituted. This was impermissible in the light of Section 95 of the Reorganisation Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. , [(1977) 1 SCC 643] to submit that word ‘substitution’ must be considered in the manner laid down by the Supreme Court. The impugned provision is unconstitut
