M RAJENDER REDDY Vs. OSMANIA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TIMES were when any one rejected by any college of education, could yet be sure of securing easy entrance into a law course for mere asking. In those not far off days, whoever asked for admission into law was given. Law Colleges were truly haven of the rejected. As Laski used to say, study of law recognisedly, was not an intellectual pursuit either in England or here. The anatomy and physiology of the society, was not seriously taught or studied. It is more a hobby and avocation of the gentlemen welcoming the new entrants, Prof. Krishna Monon, Principal of the Madras Law College used to say, "you are here gentlemen, because you could not be anywhere else ; yet I welcome you all". But, times have changed. To-day, admission into law course is governed by a tough competitive examination. It cannot be secured, except by an applicant passing through the narrow gate of common entrance test and succeeding in the stiff competition. Practice of law has now become more a bread winning proposition.

(2.) THE petitioner is a graduate and has secured 57% of marks in the common entrance examination conducted by the Osmania University. Yet, he failed to secure admission into first year LL. B. course of the Post Graduate College of law. For admission to the general seats, he has indisputably no claim because there are more meritorious candidates. His claim is confined for one of the three seats reserved for physically handicapped candidates. His complaint is that while the college refused him admission into LL. B. , course of study, it has admitted one Krishna into the same course who has secured only 51% of marks in the entrance examination. Both Krishna (who is not a party to the writ petition) and the petitioner are physically handicapped and come under the category of the orthopaedically handicapped. The few seats reserved for the handicapped were distributed among the categories to the blind, deaf and orthopaedically handicapped. The orthopaedic category gets one seat. The competition of the petitioner with Krishna is for that seat. The doctors have certified that while the petitioner suffers from 40% of disability coming under the category of orthopaedically handicapped, Krishna suffers from 70% of the same disability. If admission is to be governed by the degree of disability, Krishna should get that one seat. But the rules for admission on mere literal reading do not say that as between the competing candidates belonging to the same category, preference should be shown to the more disadvantaged. However, the Principal of the Law College who is in charge of the admissions, interpreted as imlpying allotment of the one seat on the basis of high or degree of disability and allotted on that basis of interpretation the seat to Krishna on the ground that he had suffered from a massive disability of 70% in preference to the petitioner who has suffered only 40% of disability. The petitioner has, therefore, filed this writ petition.

(3.) THE petitioner's contention is that once he is found to be orthopaedically handicapped as Krishna was, his competitive claims for admission should be adjudged only on the basis of his performance in the entrance test and not on the basis of the comparative degree of disability, He says that he and Krishna, by reason of disability belong to the same class and he, having secured more marks, should get the seat. This argument is, prima facie, tenable. But, on deeper considerations of the matter, I find that this argument of the petitioner cannot be accepted. This argument of the petitioner can only be accepted by treating all the candidates belonging to the category of orthopaedic disability as equals and by ignoring the degrees of disability, however, marked, they may be. The question is whether this argument of the petitioner can be given effect to.