AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
These writ petitions relate to the admission to M.S. (Orthopaedics) course for the academic year 1995-96.
The Nizam''s Institute of Medical Sciences (NIMS) was notified as a State wide university under the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions Regulation of Admissions (Amendment) Order, 1991. Under para 6 of the original order, 1975, 85% of the available seats have to be reserved for the local candidates in the ratio of 42:36:22 in respect of Andhra University Area, Osmania University area and Sri Venkateshwara University area respectively. Proviso to that para states that this allocation shall not apply in relation to any course of study in which the total number of available seats does not exceed three. This order also has an overriding effect. Para 10 declares for removal of doubts that this order do not affect the operation of any provision made in respect of reservations in favour of women, socially and educationally backward classes, the scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes insofar as such provisions are inconsistent with this order.
In respect of the M.S. (Orthopaedics) course, the total number of seats were four. In the rules for admission to post-graduate medical courses in the NIMS, the number of seats available for admission to M.S., (Orthopaedics) course, was given as four. The statutory reservation for SC/ST/BCs was given as one seat each for BC and ST. The selection was to be based on the performance of the students at the entrance test conducted by a committee constituted by the institute. In making the admission according to merit, one seat had to be given to the highest ranker irrespective of reservation and the said seat was given to Dr. G. Parameshwar Rao, the highest ranker with 110 marks and he happened to be from Andhra University area. There were three seats left thus each university given one seat, out of which one was reserved for BCs and the other for ST candidate. The second highest ranker Dr. Jaybharath Reddy who had obtained 108 marks was also an OC candidate belonging to Andhra University area. He was allotted that seat. The rest of the two seats being reserved for BC and ST candidates and to be filled in from Osmania University area and Sri Venkateshwara University area, the list of BC and ST candidates of those areas was prepared. The top rankeramong the BC candidates was Dr. D. Obulapathy who had obtained 101 marks and as he belonged to Sri Venkateshwara University area, he was allotted that seat. Among the ST candidates, the top ranker belonging to Osmania University was Dr. J. Padma who obtained 73 marks, and she was allotted that seat.
Dr. J. Satyam claims in writ petition No. 29820 of 1995 that he also obtained 108 marks and he belonged to the BC-B category and he should have been given the second seat in Andhra University area in preference to Dr. Jayabharath Reddy. The contention was that to avoid a tie between himself and the selected candidate, his answer-sheet had been tampered with and his marks had been reduced to 107 and he was thus denied the seat. In order to verify this, there was an interim direction requiring the production of the answer-sheet which has been shown to me. I find that while correcting the answer-sheet, for one question -- question No. 34, a mark was given even though it was a wrong answer and this mistake was later corrected so that the total number if marks came down to 107. In view of this factual position viz., that this candidate viz., Dr. Satyam obtained only 107 marks, there was nothing wrong in giving the admission to Dr, Jayabharath Reddy who got 108 marks.
Dr. Venugopalachary claims in writ petition No. 921 of 1996 that he obtained 104 marks and he should have been given the seat in preference to the other two candidates who got less marks than him. Dr. Rajesh Babu claims in writ petition No 29700 of 1995 that he belongs to ST category and obtained 97 marks and he should have been given the seat in preference to Dr. Padma. The answer of the institute for these two persons is that Dr. Venugopaiacharyulu belonged to Andhra University area and being OC candidate it was already filled up with the candidate of highest marks and cannot be allotted that seat and he cannot claim a seat in the other two areas. With reference to Rajesh Babu, the answer is that even though he got higher ranks, he belonged to Andhra University area whereas that seat had been filled up already by an OC candidate, and an ST candidate could get admission only if he belonged to Osmania University area.
Interim orders had been made to maintain status quo, and the institute filed petitions to vacate the interim direction to enable it to commence the course. With the consent of the parties, the writ petitions have been heard.
Sri S. Ramachandra Rao appearing for Sri Rajesh Babu contended that since the first seat was given to the outstanding candidate, the available seats must be taken to be only three and therefore, in accordance with the proviso to para 6 of the presidential order, the question of reservation itself does riot arise and the seats to be filled up only according to the merit without reservation to any candidate. I am unable to accept this contention because the procedure for implementation of the reservation given in Annexure IV to G.O. P. No. 646, dated 10th July, 1979 stales that the number of seats available in the course of study shall first be computed by deducting from the total number of seats provided in that course the number of seats reserved for candidates from outside the State. No other deduction is provided for. Admittedly, the total number of seats for this course was four. Since the proviso to para 6 indicates that the provision relating to reservation shall not apply in relation to any course of study in which the total number of available seats does not exceed three, it must be held that the reservations have to be maintained. The learned counsel appearing for Dr. Venugopalacharyulu adopted the same argument and submitted that for years together a particular university has been getting only a reserved candidate and this indicated that there was manipulation to see that the other candidates are kept out. The learned counsel for the institute pointed out that that was the result of filling up the seats according to merit, as has happened in the present year also. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the rules of admission which stated that the reservation for SC, ST and BC will be followed by taking the total number of seats in all the courses as per the rotation adopted by the institute every year, and it is for the university to produce the scheme of rotation to prove that every university area had a fair chance to several categories of candidates. A close look at para 3 of the admission rules indicates that the rotation has been already notified in that rule itself by providing for one seat each for BC and ST in the M. S. (Orthopaedics) course. The reservation is for the course and not for the area and hence for the current academic year also one seat each has been reserved for BC and ST for M.S. Ortho course. The fact that two reserved seats went to Sri Venkateshwara and Osmania Universities because of the selection process according to merit, is a different matter.
Sri S.A. Chary, appearing for Dr. Satyam argued that the very process of selection is inequitable and denied a fair chance to candidates who had obtained higher marks because as can be gleaned from the statement of the institute itself, and ST candidate with lesser marks has been granted, a seat while another ST candidate with higher marks has been denied the same. He thus questioned the application of the so called 6 point formula. The learned counsel for the institute submitted that in the absence of reservation according to the university area, the only way in which the admissions can be made was the way in which it has been done and the consequence was due entirely to the fact that the seats were limited and not for any other reasons.
As can be seen from the facts of the case, the admission made by the institute has led to a haphazard result. The problem, therefore, is whether reservation can be made for educationally and socially backward classes, SCs and STs along with reservation for local area without denial of seat to a candidate who had obtained more marks than one who is admitted. The first solution suggested by Sri Ramachandra Rao that the reservation itself should be done away with by applying the proviso to para 6 of the presidential order, is found to be untenable. The second solution is to fill up the other OC candidate at the end for the remaining vacancies. This perhaps would have been ordinarily envisaged but for Rule 7(b) of Annexure IV of G.O.P. No. 646, dated 10-7-1979. That rule read with the overriding effect of the order, provides that the local candidate had to be successively eliminated in reverse order which means that the local candidate with a higher will have precedence over a reserved candidate unless otherwise provided by a regulation under clause 10 of the order. Moreover, even if the reserved seat had been filled first, the direct consequence will be that while the candidate with 97 marks is allotted Andhra University and the candidate with 101 marks is allotted S.V. University for ST and BC respectively, the other candidates who got 108 and 107 would lose their seats, leading to the situation whereby more meritorious candidates have to given place to less meritorious candidates. This solution, therefore, does not appear to be any better than the method actually adopted by the institute. Keeping in mind the decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, where it was held that more weight should be given to merit in postgraduate course, the method adopted by the institute seems to be preferable since greater merit is recognised except in the case of reserved candidates. The third solution is to have a rotation of the reservation in respect of the local area also. But, such a reservation has to be made before the notification is given for admission, for unless a seat is notified as reserved, for instance for ST candidate from Osmania University area, it is not possible to deny that seat to other candidates of that area if they have obtained higher marks. Perhaps, this solution could be adopted by the university in future to avoid this kind of criticism that the admission rules lead to haphazard results, and a rotation could be made not only with reference to the course but also with reference to the University areas. Until that is done, the only solution left is to fill up the seats according to merit as has been done by the institute. We are left with a situation where an ST candidate who has obtained more marks has been denied a seat while another ST candidate with lesser marks has obtained the same. No doubt this has resulted in some heart-burning for that candidate, but then in recent times OC candidates have been complaining about similar heart-burning that higher rank candidates of OC category are denied seats in favour of reserved candidates of lesser rank, and I do not see why ST candidates also should not share such feelings so that they may also understand the repercussions of reservations and the difficulties in adjusting the limited seats among the competing candidates. On a consideration of the entire facts of the case, I am convinced that as the rules stand at present, the institute could make the admission only in the way in which it has been done and hence, the admissions made have to be upheld. The writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.
Petition dismissed.