B SUDHAKAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Doubting the correctness of the judgments in Dr. Fazal Ghafoor v. Principal, Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad, (1988) 2 ALT 227, Dr. K. Ashok Kumar v. University of Health Sciences, (1988) 2 Andh Pra LT 463 and B. Ramesh v. University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, AIR 1991 Andh Pra 1 on the question of interpretation of paragraph 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Educational. Institutions (Regulation of Admission) Order, 1974 (for short 'the Presidential Order') our learned brother S. Parvatha Rao, J., referred the Writ Petition to a Division Bench for reconsideration of the decisions in the said cases by his Order dated 23/02/1994. On 4/03/1994, the Division Bench consisting of our learned brother A. Lakshmana Rao and S. Dasaradha Rama Reddy, JJ., agreed with the view expressed by the learned single Judge and referred the Writ Petition for consideration by a Full Bench and thus this Writ Petition has come up before us.

(2.) The University of Health Sciences and the Principal, Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad -- Respondents 3 and 4 respectively issued notification inviting applications for admission to various super-speciality courses including D.M. (Nephrology) (Second P. G. Course) from eligible candidates in January, 1994. In response to the said notification, the Writ petitioner as well as some other candidates applied for admission to D.M. (Nephrology). This course was introduced by providing one seat in Osmania General Hospital from 1990. An entrance examination was conducted for selection and admission of candidates to super-speciality course including the said course. The petitioner and the fifth respondent, among others, appeared for the examination; whereas the petitioner secured the first rank, the fifth respondent secured the third rank. The successful candidates were asked to appear for selection on 21/02/1994 and the classes for the said courses were scheduled to commence from 1/03/1994. The grievance of the petitioner is that in view of the Presidential Order, the said seat in D.M. (Nephrology) was treated as reserved for the students of the local area and allotted to the fifth respondent who is a local candidate in the Osmania University local area and the petitioner was thus denied the seat as he is non-local in that area, so he filed this Writ Petition praying for a Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of respondents 1 to 3 in treating the seat as earmarked for selection from out" of local candidates in Osmania University local area under paragraph 5 of the Presidential Order, as arbitrary and ultra vires Arts. 14 and 371D of the Constitution; that the sole seat in D.M. (Nephrology) is available to all the candidates irrespective of their local status on the basis of rank obtained in the entrance examination, and for a further declaration that paragraphs 2(1)(a), 5 and 6 of the Presidential Order insofar as they apply to super-speciality course in the Medical Colleges of Andhra Pradesh, are ultra vires Article 371D of the Constitution and subversive of public interest and for a consequential direction to allot the seat to him.

(3.) Mr. G. Raghuram, the learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contended that on its phraseology and the historical background in which it came to be passed, paragraph 5 of the Presidential Order should be so construed as to mean that for admission in super-speciality courses merit alone should count but the interpretation placed by Division Benches of this Court on paragraph 5 of the Presidential Order in Dr. Fazal Ghafoor's case (1988 (2) ALT 227) (supra), Dr. K. Ashok Kumar's case (1988 (2) ALT 463) (supra) and Ramesh's case (AIR 1991 Andh Pra 1) (supra) completely ignores this aspect as such it is against the public interest and wholly untenable in view of the express wording of the proviso appended to that para and that such interpretation results in denial of equal opportunity to candidates of other regions of the State. He argued that a sole seat in any super-speciality course is not within the ambit of the said para. Alternatively, he contended that paragraph 5 is itself ultra vires Article 371D and as such unconstitutional and that it may be so declared.