STATE Vs. K NARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole, short but highly sensitive question that arises for debate in this case is - whether a nonresident candidate from out of the State of Andhra Pradesh is entitled to admission to a seat in medical college within the meaning of 'non-local' candidate while reading in combination Art.371-D, the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions) Order, 1974 and the Rules framed under S.3 read with S.15(1) of the A. P. Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act (A. P. Act No. 5 of 1983) issued under G.O. Ms. No. 351, M and H, dt. 10th June, 1983 as amended in G.O. Ms. No. 502, M and H, dt. 14th June, 1984.

(2.) Now, the brief format. The respondent herein is the Writ Petitioner. He passed Intermediate examination during the academic year 1982-1984 from Kendriya Vidyalaya, Jyothipuram (J and K). He applied for admission to M.B.B.S. course pursuant to G.O. Ms. No. 502, M and H, dt. 14th June, 1984 issued by the Government of A. P. as a non-local as he did not belong to this area. Though an objection was raised at the time of receipt of the application itself, but however, by virtue of the court order he was permitted to appear for the entrance examination and the result, however, was not allowed to be published, and was subjected to the result of the Writ Petition. While impugning the validity of sub-rule (9) of R.7 of the Andhra Pradesh Regulation of Admission of Students into Medical Colleges/Govt. Dental College Rules, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') which sought to restrict the unreserved quota to the residents of the State of Andhra Pradesh as violative of Art.14 of the Constitution, it was stressed that the reservation was only with reference to 85% of the available seats under the Presidential Order of 1974. Therefore, neither the A. P. Act No. 5 of 1983, nor the Presidential Order confer any power on the State Government to frame any rule in excess of the said provisions and so, R.7(9) of the Rules cannot create any bar. The argument no doubt, is attractive, and so has found favour with the learned single Judge Sri Anjaneyulu, J. before whom the Writ Petition came up for adjudication and consequently the Writ was made absolute. Hence the Government has come up in this appeal.

(3.) The main thrust of the appellant's case is that R.7(9) cannot be questioned as ultra vires in view of the provisions enacted in Art.371D of the Constitution. Even otherwise, the rule is quite in accord with the provisions enacted both in the Presidential Order as well as Act 5 of 1983 read in the light of Art.371D.