M RATIN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE a common issue in all these four writ petitions is involved, they are being disposed of by a common order.

(2.) THE petitioners in all these four writ petitions passed the qualifying examination, namely, two years intermediate course and are eligible for being admitted into the Engineering Course in 'b' category seats. The petitioners claim that though they have visited respondent Nos. 4 and 5 colleges many times, they were not informed about the details of the availability of 'b' category seats nor they were considered for admission under the said category; that they came to know that respondent No. 3 commenced the process of admission of students in 'b' category seats without prior notification and proper intimation to the general public. It is averred that though respondent Nos. 3 to 5 have been indulging in blatant violation of the Rules framed by the government as notified in G. O. Ms. No. 53 dated 10. 5. 2006 in filling up 'b' category seats, by keeping the more meritorious candidates aspiring to join Engineering course in respondent Nos. 4 and 5 colleges in dark, respondent Nos. l, 2, 6 and 7 have not been taking any effective steps to curb the malpractices of respondent Nos. 3 to 5. The petitioners therefore sought for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 in not considering their applications for admission into B. E. , csce/ece, B. E. Mech. /csce/mechatronics and B. E. ECE/eee courses; in not issuing notification for admission under 20% of 'b' category seats into Under Graduate professional Course in Engineering (including technology) for the academic year 2007-2008 in respondent Nos. 4 and 5 colleges in accordance with G. O. Ms. No. 53 dated 10. 5. 2006 as illegal, unconstitutional and violative of G. O. Ms. No. 53 dated 10. 5. 2006 and for a consequential direction to respondent Nos. l to 3 to ensure that respondent No. 3 issues notification for admission into 20% 'b' category seats into respondent Nos. 4 and 5 colleges. The petitioners also sought for a direction not to approve the admissions being made contrary to the Rules framed in G. O. Ms. No. 53 dated 10. 5. 2006.

(3.) THE Secretary of Andhra Pradesh state Council of Higher Education -respondent No. 2 filed a common counter-affidavit in Writ Petition Nos. 16290, 1585 and 17363 of 2007 in which with reference to the allegation regarding violation of the rules framed in G. O. Ms. No. 53 dated 10. 5. 2006, he averred that the rules notified in G. O. Ms. No. 53 clearly stipulate that the institution shall notify the details of seats available under 'b' category and conduct admissions in a fair, transparent and non-exploitative manner. He further stated that the rules neither prescribed the mode of notification nor assigned any role to respondent No. 2 to regulate the procedure prescribed therein and that respondent no. 2 is the competent authority notified under the said G. O. to approve the lists of the admission candidates in respect of the said quota. It is further stated that soon after completion of the admissions by the respondents' colleges, they send the lists of candidates for approval before the notified cut of date and that at that point of time, respondent No. 2 verifies whether the colleges have complied with Rule 6 (ii) of the Rules in respect of 'b' category seats and that irregularities, if any, in notifying 'b' category seats will only be verified after the lists are submitted by the colleges. On this premise, respondent No. 2 averred that it was assigned with a limited role without being empowered to take regulatory measures. He further averred that the college managements are given certain liberty to fix their own modalities by notifying 'b' category seats in view of the observations made by the Supreme Court in TMA Pai foundation and others v. State of karnataka and others, (2002) 8 SCC 481, that unaided professional institutions shall be given greater autonomy in determination of admission procedure and fee structure and the State regulation be minimal only to the extent of maintaining fairness and transparency in admission procedure and to check exploitation of the students by charging exorbitant money or capitation fees; the modalities of notifying the seats were left to the private managements themselves and that if there is any irregularity or illegality committed by them in the admission process for 'b' category seats, it is for the committees constituted in pursuance of the judgment of the Supreme Court in islamic Academy of Education and another v. State of Karnataka and others, 2003 (5) ALD 1 (SC) = (2003) 6 SCC 697, to regulate such irregularities or illegalities. In its counter, the Secretary of respondent no. 2 candidly admitted that none of the college managements, including respondent no. 3, are not notifying the availability of 'b' category seats in the newspapers.