R RAMJEE NAIK Vs. GOVT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner escalates deep grouse for not getting a post-graduate seat in clinical subject of his choice. He is a member of Scheduled Tribe and a graduate in MBBS, served as Asst. Civil Surgeon in Directorate of Medical and Health from 1992 credited with three years of rural service, entered the selection list of entrance examination for the year 1996-97 with rank No.485, first among the candidates in ST in-service category. The second respondent/University, while allotting the Degree seats in the discipline of Anaesthesia, Opthalmology etc., and General Medicine and Diploma seat in Medicine group, did not allot surgery or Obstetrics and Gynaecology group for in-service ST candidate, and this according to the Petitioner is failure to implement Rule 3(3) and 9(4) of the Rules of Admission to P.G. Courses in Medical Colleges in the State of Andhra Pradesh, (in short, the Admission Rules) and seeks a direction by a Writ of Mandamus or other order to implement it. The 1st respondent is the Government of Andhra Pradesh. In the completed pleadings, these are the untraversed facts.

(2.) Whatever be the learned cross swording of the two individuals, Sri M. Ravindra Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.G.K. Prasad, learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent in legal battle, the clear law settles their score which this Court positively declares herein.

(3.) The Admission Rules are framed by the Government under Section 15 of the A.P.Educational Institutions Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee Act, 1993 (Act 5/93), in short, the Act. The law is settled in regard to the powers of the Government and the University for admission of the candidates to the Courses or disciplines by virtue of the provisions of the Act and the Admission Rules. (Unreported decision of this Court in Rohit Pande v. Govt. of A.P. and others (WP. No. 12953/92 and batch) dated 12-2-1993, The Convener, MBA, MCA, CET, Nagarjuna University v. U. Kiran Raju and another (WA.No.946/96 dated 9-4-1996) and a reported precedent in Sadanand v. Secretary to Government, 1995 (2) ALT 49, all of them being by Division Benches). The summary of the law laid down therein may be recorded - "It is manifest that the power to regulate admission to medical and engineering colleges including reservation of seats to different categories of seats is conferred on the State Government. The provisions of the Act has overriding effect over any other law as specified in Section 12. The University of Health Sciences Act (Act 6/86) and the Act should be read together. On reading the provisions of the two Acts together, it is apparent that in Act 5/93 power has been specifically conferred on the State Government to reserve seats to members of different category of students whereas no such power has been conferred on any of the authorities of the University under Act 6/86. However, the power to regulate admission into the Medical Colleges is conferred both on the State Government and the University under the respective Acts. But in view of Section 12 of the Act 5/93, the rules, if any, made by the State Government regulating the admission into the medical colleges shall have an over riding effect over the rules made by the executive council of the University of Health Sciences (vide Dileep Damodaran v. Secretary to Government, Hyderabad AIR 1991 AP 194. But only the State Government has the power to make reservation of seats to the members belonging to any category of students and the University of Health Sciences does not have any such power (Rohit Pande's case supra). Thus, the selection of students for admission is one of the functions entrusted to the University under Section 5 of the Act. Thus, the University of Health Sciences has been conferred the power in law to frame rules for purposes of selecting the candidates for admission either to the colleges run by it or to the colleges affiliated to it. The function of the executive to lay down the procedure for admission to the reserved seats is also supported by the Supreme Court in Sandeep Babarv. State of Punjab, 1992 (3) Scale 211. The pith and core of the judicially declared law in this regard can be read into paras 7 and 8 of the operative portion of the Judgment in Pande 's case supra which read-