B CHAKRADHARI Vs. POTTI SREERAMULU TELUGU UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 4 in selecting the respondents 5 and 6 to the course of Ph.D (Journalism) for the Academic year 2010-11 as illegal and arbitrary and opposed to the procedure contemplated under the prospectus issued by them for selection and consequently set aside the selection of the respondents 5 and 6 for the said Course and direct the respondents 1 to 4 to provide a seat to the petitioner in the Ph.D (Journalism) course for the academic year 2010-11. Facts which are necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

(2.) It is stated that 23 candidates are called for the interview including the petitioner herein. Out of the 23 candidates, 13 candidates possessed M.Phil qualifications and 10 candidates got through the entrance examination with M.C.J qualification. Challenging the selection of Ajitha and Umamaheshwari, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 20661 of 2012. While the said writ petition was pending, the 3rd respondent addressed a letter dated 02.11.2012 to the 4th respondent intimating him that out of 12 seats, only 11 candidates are filled up and one seat was vacant due to non-joining of one B. Prasad, who is standing at Sl. No. 2 in the merit list and in that vacant seat, the 5th respondent was accommodated instead of the petitioner. That seat is in the open category and the same should have been filled by the next merit candidate only. The petitioner belongs to OC category and standing in the merit list above the respondents 5 and 6. The petitioner was placed at serial No. 5 with 43 marks and whereas the 5th respondent got 42.5 marks only. Hence, the respondents 1 to 4 ought to have accommodated the petitioner in the un-filled one seat. In the letter dated 02.11.2012 of the 3rd respondent, it was stated that an additional seat was said to have been sanctioned by the 1st respondent in his proceedings dated 02.11.2012 and in that additional seat the 6th respondent was accommodated who got only 25.5 marks. It is also stated that the respondents 1 to 4 have not followed the roster points. It is further stated that in the additional seat, the petitioner could have been accommodated. Therefore, the action of the respondents 1 to 4 in taking the respondents 5 and 6 in Ph.D (Journalism) Course is illegal and arbitrary.

(3.) The 2nd respondent filed counter admitting the issuance of notification for admission into Ph.D (Journalism) Course. It is stated that after conducting written examination and valuation of answer scripts it was found that the required number of candidates against the seats reserved for SC & ST and Women under Open Category were not qualified with 30% marks and 40% marks. It was, therefore, recommended in the meeting of Heads and Deans of the University to reduce the cut off marks to enable the required number of candidates to qualify themselves for interviews for the reserved seats from 40% to 30% and 30% to 20% for Open Category and BCs and SCs & STs respectively. Thereupon, Ms. Ajitha with 33 marks under Open Category and Ms. Uma Maheswari (SC category) with 22 marks called for interview and finally they were allotted seats under women category. It is further stated that even before admission list was finalized, on 04.07.2012 the petitioner along with some other students barged into the Vice Chancellor's Chambers and shouted slogans and abused the Vice-Chancellor, Registrar, Professors and other teachers involved in the admission process with filthy language. Thereafter, the teachers and the staff complained the same to the Vice-Chancellor about the petitioner's indecent behaviour using unprintable language and later the University was forced to file a complaint on 04.07.2012 with the police. Basing on the same, the Nampally Police Station registered a case in Crime No. 140/12 under Sections 341 and 506 IPC and the same is pending with the police for investigation.