K PRAKASH Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants in the first three appeals were admitted to I year MBA course in private colleges offering management education. The appellants in the other two appeals were admitted to I year B.Tech course in private Engineering Colleges during academic year 2009-2010. All of them were admitted against seats what are described by the relevant statutory rules as Category-B seats. The relevant rules provide that a person to be qualified for admission to Category-B seats either in MBA/MCA or B.E I year must get 50% aggregate in the qualifying examination i.e., Degree or intermediate/10+2/CBSE etc. or must have obtained 50% in the group subjects. As required under the relevant rules the respective private professional colleges submitted the proposals to the Andhra Pradesh State Council for Higher Education (State Council) for approval of the admissions made by the respective managements against category-B seats. The State Council sometime in December/January 2009 approved the admissions of those students with 50% aggregate either in the qualifying examination or in group subjects, but rejected approval to the appellants herein. In all such proceedings it was reasoned that due to less percentage the admission of the appellants could not be approved. Aggrieved by the non-approval by the State Council, the appellants filed writ petitions, inter alia, contending that the 60% minimum aggregate in the qualifying examination was reduced by the Government itself to 50% and that in yester years on more than one occasion the Government itself permitted State Council to grant relaxation by collecting penalty. Learned single Judge by impugned order dated 31.03.2010 dismissed the writ petitions observing that in the absence of statutory compliance with 50% aggregate rule the appellants cannot seek a mandamus. Reliance was placed on State of Uttar Pradesh v. Harish Chandra, 1996 9 SCC 309, which reiterated the axiom that no mandamus shall issue from the Court, which would go contrary to law.

(2.) Keeping in view the plight of the appellants - some of them still in their teens; we have patiently heard the submissions of the Counsel. We have given anxious consideration to the background facts and the law -both statute and precedent; and have come to conclusion that except in W.A. No. 276 of 2010, which is governed by two decisions of the Supreme Court, we have no reason to deviate from the reasoning or the conclusions of the learned single Judge. We respectfully, for the reasons to follow, confirm the impugned judgment.

(3.) Andhra Pradesh Regulation of Admissions into MBA/MCA Professional Courses through Common Entrance Test Rules, 2006 (hereafter MBA Rules) govern the admission to MBA/MCA in colleges in public as well as private sector. The Andhra Pradesh Unaided Non-Minority Professional Institutions (Regulation of Admissions into Under-graduate Professional Courses through Common Entrance Test) Rules, 2006 (hereafter called, Undergraduate Rules), govern admission to various Undergraduate Professional Courses like B.Ed, M.B.B.S, B.E. Both sets of the Rules are promulgated by the State in exercise of their delegated legislative power under Sections 3 and 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 (the Act). It is trite that the statutory rules made by the delegated authority form part of parent Act and shall be governed by the same principles of interpretation. It is also well settled that when the statutory rules prescribe qualifications and also criteria for admission to various Educational Institutions and Educational courses, the Courts cannot interfere in such matters although it is always open to the Court to interpret a particular rule laid under qualifications. Keeping this in view we may state that as both sets of rules are in paramateria and in similar terms we may refer to Undergraduate Rules for the sake of convenience.