Ch. Chinnaiah vs Govt. of A.P., Dept. of Education, Hyderabad and others

In this writ petition the question involved is the constitutional validity of Rule 3(f) of the Andhra Pradesh Colleges of Education (Regulation of Admission into B.Ed., Course through Common Entrance Test) Rules, 1989 (GO Ms. No.I54, Education) dated 27-4-1989. The relevant rules reads as follows:

(f) Ten seats in each Government Comprehensive College of Education/ Government College of Education shall be reserved for Section Officers and other non-gazetted officials including Record Assistants and Attenders working in the Education Department of Andhra Pradesh Secretariat as permitted by the Government and Ministerial Staff including Record Assistants and Attenders working in the offices under the control of the Director of School Education and the ministerial staff including Record Assistants and Attenders working in the recognised non-Government Institutions like Zilla Parishads, Panchayat Samithies, Municipalities, Private Institutions like the Zilla Parishads, Panchayat Samithies, Municipalities, Private Institutions under the administrative control of the Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as permitted by the Director of School Education. Their selection for admission will be made by the Director of School Education purely on the basis of rank assigned in the Common Entrance Test. If sufficient number of candidates are not available under those quota they may be filled in by the candidates from the genera! pool".

From the reading of the above rule it is clear that ten seats in each Government College of Education are reserved for Section Officers and other non-gazetted officials including Record Assistants and Attenders working in the Education Department of the Andhra Pradesh Secretariat as permitted by the Government and Ministerial staff including the Record Assistants and Attenders working in the offices under the control of the Director of School Education and the ministerial staff including Record Assistants and Attenders working in the recognised non-Government Institutions like the Zilla Parishads, Panchayat Samithies, Municipalities, Private Institutions under the administrative control of the Director of School Education. It also provides that selection for admission will be made by the Director of School Education purely on the basis of the rank assigned in the Common Entrance Test. It also provides that if sufficient number of candidates are not available under this quota it may be filled in by the candidates from the general pool.

The petitioner appeared for B.Ed., examination and obtained 50% of the marks and his rank in the entrance test is 1255. However, he did not get admission into B.Ed., course. Hence this writ petition.

The main argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that reservation in favour of the employees mentioned under Rule 3(f) of the rules is contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another, , and the judgment of this Court in Sri Venkateswara University Teachers Association, Tirupati and others Vs. Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati, , Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Another Vs. N. Narasimha, , and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India 1992(3) SCC .217. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that here is no reservation for Secondary Grade Teachers and therefore the reservation in favour of the categories of employees mentioned in clause (f) of Rule 3 is based on no reason. He further contended that no further categorisation is made while reserving ten seats in each College. With the result the seats may exceed 50% of (he quota which is contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (supra).

In the counter affidavit it is stated that the impugned rule is made in order to get the Ministerial Employees to acquire B.Ed., qualification, the ministerial staff are eligible for promotion to the School Assistant under the Andhra Pradesh Educational Subordinate Service Rules. It is also stated that there are 7 Government Colleges in the entire State. Each College is having intake capacity of 160 seats for B.Ed. Out of 160 seats 10 seats are reserved for the ministerial staff working in the Education Department. The percentage of reservation comes to 6% and not to 16% as stated by the petitioner. For the previous year 1997-98 out of 70 seats reserved for ministerial employees of the Education Department only 22 ministerial staff have applied for admission under the impugned rule and they were provided admission in 7 Government Colleges. The remaining 48 seats have been filled up by the candidates from the general rule allotted by the Convener, Education, Common Entrance Test.

The learned Counsel for the respondents contends that there are no merits in the Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

The question therefore arises is whether the reservation of 10 seats for the categories of employees working in the Education Department is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

It is pointed out that the reservation under Rule 3(f) is not either under Article 15(4) or 16(4) of the Constitution of India. It is a reservation under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. If the categories of employees mentioned in Rule 3(f) from a class of employees, then the reservation under Article 14 is valid. Otherwise it is invalid, Admittedly these employees are working in the Education Department and they form class by themselves. The object in reserving 10 seats for these categories of employees is to encourage them to improve their educational qualifications for getting higher promotion in order to discharge their duties effectively and to cater to the needs of the Department of Education. There is a nexus between the classification and the object sought to be achieved namely, improvement of the educational qualifications and to cater the needs of the Education Department. Therefore, the reservation in favour of these employees is valid as they form a class by themselves. As I have already pointed out in the earlier paragraphs the classification is not either under Article 15(4) or 16(4) of the Constitution of India. Further the reservation of seats in favour of the categories of employees mentioned under Rule 3(f) is on the basis of the rank assigned in the entrance test. In other words they will be treated along with other candidates who appeared for the common entrance test and rank is given and on the basis of that rank admission is given in the B.Ed., Course. In the absence of candidates getting rank in the merit list, the seats are filled by the other candidates whose names are included in the merit list. The judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in Thapar Institute of Engineering & Technology v. State of Punjab, (supra) is not relevant to the facts of this case as in that case separate merit list was prepared for the wards of the staff of the Technological Institute of Textile & Science in the B.Tech., Course. It is relevant to refer to the observations of the Supreme Court which are to the following effect:

"But for the purpose of admission to these four seats a separate merit list is drawn in respect of the candidates who are eligible for these seats and admission is not made according to merit as reflected in the common merit list. Such reservation in favour of wards of the Collect and mill/ school staff of the T.I.T. & S. does not satisfy the test of admission being given strictly on the basis of merit as laid down by this Court and has been rightly held to be impermissible by the High Court. The said appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed."

It is clear that the categories of employees covered by Rule 3(f) are admitted to B.Ed., course on the basis of the rank assigned to them in the Common Entrance Test and there is no separate merit list prepared for these candidates. Therefore, the above judgment has no application to the facts of this case.

Coming to the judgment of this Court in Sri Venkateswara University Teachers Association, Tirupathi v, Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupathi (supra) it is a case where the reservation is made in favour of the children of the staff of the University. The staff of the University cannot be classified as a class under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. They cannot be treated as a class by themselves. Under those circumstances the learned Judges held that the reservation in favour of the children of the employees of the University is not valid. Similar is the case in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Represented by its Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, Hyderabad v. Narasimha, (supra).

It is true in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, (supra) the Supreme Court reiterated the view stating that the reservation contemplated in Clause 4 of Article 16 should not exceed 50%. A reading of Rule 3(f) does not provide for further reservation either under Article 16(4) or 15(4). It is pointed out that as long as overall reservations do not exceed 50% even after reserving 10 seats for the categories of employees mentioned in the said rule, the rule is valid. The petitioners though alleged that by virtue of reservation in favour of the categories of employees mentioned in Rule 3(f) the reservation in favour of BC, SC and ST exceed 50% not substantiated the same by furnishing particulars. Therefore, the reservation in favour of the categories of employees cannot be said to be invalid.

In view of the above, I do not see any merit in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.