PRINCIPAL KAKATIYA UNIVERSITY Vs. PREMALATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against a judgment of our learned brother, Seetharam Reddy, J, allowing a writ petition. The writ petitioner is a teacher. She applied for admission into M.Sc., (Botany) of the University College, Kakatiya University, Warangal in the teachers' quota. Her application was routed through the Director of School Education who had recommended to the college that she may be considered for admission into M.Sc., (Botany). On the basis of that, the writ petitioner was permitted to appear for the entrance examination conducted by the University. Whether she passed in the entrance examination or not, is not known. But it was found at that stage that the petitioner could not apply for teachers quota, because teachers quota was available only in Arts subjects and not in Science subjects. Accordingly, she was refused admission into M. Sc., (Botany). The writ petitioner has therefore filed the aforementioned writ petition which was allowed by the learned Judge with a direction to the college to admit the writ petitioner into M.Sc., (Botany) course- for the academic year 1983-84. It is against the above judgment, the Principal, University College, Kakatiya University and the Vice Chancellor, Kakatiya University have preferred this writ appeal.

(2.) It cannot be in dispute that the Kakatiya University is constituted by a statute as a body-corporate and that the University derives its powers to manage its internal affairs from that parent Act. Under the provisions of that Act, the Standing Committee of the Academic Council is competent to prescribe standard of eligibility for candidates seeking admission into the various courses of instructions. The same body is also competent to specify the courses in which instructions should be imparted and reservations should be made. It is in exercise of this power, the said Standing Committee of the Academic Council resolved on 9-9-1980. "to reserve one seat for in-service teacher candidates deputed by the Director of School Education in all post-graduate courses (non-science subjects including M.Sc., Mathematics) with effect from 1980-81 over and above the ceiling strength subject to rules and regulations of the University." The effect of the above resolution is to discontinue reservations in Science subjects to teachers and to deny admission for teachers in Science subjects of the University in Post-graduate courses. Before the time the Standing Committee of the Academic Council adopted on 9-9-80 the above resolution, the University was permitting reservation of seats for in-service teacher candidates deputed by the Director of School Education in the postgraduate courses even in Science subjects. The purpose of the aforesaid rosolution of the year 1980 is to alter that position and to deny reservation of seats in science subjects to the in-service teacher candidates while continuing the reservation of seats only in Arts subjects for these candidates. After the aforesaid resolution of the year 1980 was passed by the Standing Committee of the Academic Council it had been duly communicated on 23-10-80 to the Director of School Education and also to the Director of Higher Education who are the sponsoring authorities in addition to the Secretary to the Government Education Department, Andhra Pradesh, the President, Andhra Pradesh State Teachers' Union, District Branch, Warangal etc. Under the above resolution the writ petitioner is ineligible to apply as an in-service teacher for admission into M.Sc., (Botany). The Director of School Education to whom the above resolution had been communicated on 23-10-80 ought not to have sponsored the writ petitioner for admission into M.Sc., (Botany). But by some reason, the Director of School Education, sponsored the petitioner for admission into M.Sc., (Botany) overlooking her ineligibility. The University also failed to detect the error committed by the Director of School Education in time. The petitioner was allowed to appear for the entrance test leading to the filing of the writ petition. However, it cannot be denied that the writ petitioner is ineligible to be sponsored by the Director of School Education and that the writ petitioner has no right to be admittted into M.Sc., (Botany). The University itself cannot admit the petitioner acting contrary to its own resolution. But the case of the petitioner is that her case for admission into M.Sc., (Botany) should be considered on the basis of Rule 11 of the General Instructions which were admittedly in force till 9-9-80 and that her case should not be considered on the basis of the above resolution of 9-9-80. She says, that Rule 11 was not effectively superseded by the resolution of the Standing Committee of the Academic Council dated 9-9-80 because she says that the latter resolution was not duly published to the general public. It was this argument of the writ petitioner which found favour with the learned Judge. Tn this appeal, the correctness of that view of the learned Judge is assailed.

(3.) Two questions, one of fact and another of law arise for consideration : (1) Was the resolution of 9-9-80 duly published ? (2) Is it a condition for the enforcement of that resolution that it should be first made known ? The first Question :