M V SUDHAKAR Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners, who belong to Scheduled Caste Communities had after obtaining their MBBS Degree, sought admission into Post-graduate Medical Courses for the academic year 2003-04 and appeared for the entrance examination held on 31-12-2003. As per the results published, petitioners secured 761, 537 and 287 ranks respectively. But during Counselling, in view of the categorization of the Scheduled Caste into A, B, C and D groups vide G.O.No.47 dated 31.5.2004 issued in pursuance of A.P. Scheduled Castes (Rationalization of Reservations) Act, 2000 (the Act), and the Rules made thereunder (the Rules), petitioners who were placed in SC-C category, were given admission into Diploma in Anesthesia in Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam (for 1st petitioner), Diploma in Anaesthesia at Guntur Medical College (to the 2nd petitioner) in the first Counselling, and as there was a vacancy in Diploma in Anesthesia course at Osmania Medical College, Diploma in Anaesthesia at Osmania Medical College (to the 2nd petitioner) and in Diploma in Child Health in Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam (to the 3rd petitioner). Provisional selection intimation sent to all the selected candidates contained a note that the selections and admissions in respect of the Scheduled Caste category candidates would be subject to the result of Civil Appeals pending in the Supreme Court. (The said Civil Appeals were filed questioning the judgment of a Larger Bench of this Court upholding the validity of the Act). Subsequent to the Supreme Court allowing those appeals and striking down the Act as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution in E. V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2005 (1) ALD 102 (SC) = 2004 (1) Decisions Today (SC) 1028, petitioners filed this petition alleging that in spite of their securing decent ranks and marks they were given admission in Diploma Courses only, and since persons who secured lesser mark than them and who are ranked below them were given admission into M.S and other courses, because of the reservation as per the division among Scheduled Caste as A, B, C and D, respondents who are duty bound to make a review of the admissions are not undertaking such review in spite of their request.

(2.) On behalf of the respondents, Registrar of the second respondent University filed his counter-affidavit inter alia contending that in view of the ratio in Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh, 2002 (6) ALD 40 (SC) = 2002 (7) SCC 258, the petition is liable to be dismissed more so because the decision of the Supreme Court in E.V. Chinnaiah case (supra) will only have prospective effect but not retrospective effect. It is also alleged that the note made in the provisional selection intimations sent to the candidates (students) that admissions would be subject to the result of the appeals before the Supreme Court, was made only as per the directions of the Government of Andhra Pradesh.

(3.) The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that since the Apex Court struck down the Act, categorization of the Scheduled Caste into four groups as SC-A, SC-B, SC-C and SC- D is a nullity, and since the Supreme Court while admitting the appeals, had on 25.1.2001 ordered that the admissions to be made in any of the professional courses, or any appointment that may be made pursuant to the Act would be subject to the result of the appeals, and since second respondent while sending the provisional selection intimation to the petitioners and other students clearly stated therein that selections and admissions in respect of the Scheduled Caste category candidates shall be subject to the result of Civil Appeals pending before the Supreme Court, second respondent though bound to review the admissions of Scheduled Caste candidates did not take up the review of admission in spite of reminders. It is his contention that a reading of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of second respondent, would reveal the casual and callous manner in which the University is looking at the review of admissions, in spite of the directions of the Apex Court that the admission would be subject to the result of the appeal, and even after the appeal was allowed. It is his contention that the ratio in Madhu Singh, case (supra), under which respondents are trying to take shelter, has no application to the facts of this case and since the Apex Court did not apply the doctrine of prospective overruling, while striking down the Act, respondents who are bound to undertake the review of admissions of Scheduled Caste students, cannot, by reading something which is absent in the judgment of the Apex Court in E.V. Chinnaiah case (supra), contend that the judgment of Apex Court has only prospective operation.