CH CHINNAIAH Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23-3-1999 in WP No.29892 of 1998, dismissing the writ petition. The appellant appeared for B.Ed. Common Entrance Test - 1998, and obtained Rank No.1253. In the writ petition he challenged Rule 10(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Colleges of Education (Regulation of Admission into B.Ed, course through Common Entrance Test) Rules, 1989. The said Rule reads as under:

(2.) At the hearing of appeal learned Counsel for the appellant reiterated the same contentions. The appellant's Counsel cited a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in S.V.U. Teachers Association, Tirupati v. Srivenkateswara University, Tirupati,1998 (4) ALD 305, in support, of his contention1 that the impugned rule is invalid. The Sri Venkateswara and J.N.T. Universities the State of Andhra Pradesh created supernumerary posts for the purpose of children of teaching and non-teaching staff of the respective educational institutions Following the earlier decision of this Court invalidating such practice thee State Government directed the Universities concerned to withdraw such/facility and consequent on such withdrawal Writ petitions were filed challenging the withdrawal of the policy of reservation in favour of wards of teaching and non-teaching staff in the two Universities Following the settled law on this aspect of the matter the Division Bench upheld the withdrawal of the policy.

(3.) Another decision cited the learned Counsel Thapar Institute of Engineering And Technology v. State of Punjab, AIR 1997 SC 793. The Technological Institute of Textile and Science at Bhiwani (for short the TIT & S') is running an institute imparting, education in Textile Technology, Textile Chemistry, Computer Science and Management Science leading to the award of B.Tech/M.Tech/M.M.S Degrees, and also owns and runs a textile mill in the same premises Apart from ISO seats for B.Tech, Course run by TIT & S 4 additional seats have been provided for the wards of the employees, two of such additional seats are in the discipline of Computer Science and two other in Textiles. Of the 4 seats two are earmarked for the college staff and two for mill/school staff. The TIT & S does not receive any financial aid from (he State Government or Central Government or affiliating University or another local authority. To be eligible for admission to those earmarked seats the candidate is required to have atleast 60% marks in the aggregate of three subjects (Physics, Chemistry and Maths) of 10+2 examination and admission is to be made on the basis of the merit to be earned according to the marks secured in the entrance examination conducted by the respondent-University. Seats earmarked for college and mill/school staff can be inter-changed in case there is no eligible candidate in one particular group and if a seat allotted for Computer Course is not desired by the allottee, he shall be offered a seat in the Textile Course and, if any seat remains vacant, the requirement of service period may be relaxed with prior approval of the Chairman of the Societies. The wards of the employees who secure admission on their own merit or on reserved seats of wards are eligible for free ship the affiliating University directed TIT & S not to make any admissions under this category. Aggrieved thereby the writ petition was filed and on dismissal thereof the matter came to be considered by the Supreme Court. Another institute Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology, Patiala (for short 'the TIET') also reserved 2% of its seats in favour of the children of the employees and 5% for the children of employees of Thapar Group of Companies. On being directed by the Government of Punjab to discontinue the said reservation a writ petition was filed, which was dismissed by the High Court and came to be considered by the Supreme Court along with TIT & S case. Following the earlier judgment in J.P. Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1993 SC 2178, the Supreme Court upheld the view taken by the High Court that the reservation made by the appellants therein in favour of the wards of its employees was unsustainable in law. During the Courts of its reasoning, the Supreme Court made the following observations: