AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.A. Swami, C.J.—This appeal is preferred against the order dated 28.9.1994 passed by the learned single judge in W.P. No. 14127 of
1994. As the learned single judge has rejected the Writ Petition, the Petitioner therein has come up on appeal.
In the Writ Petition the Petitioner sought for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents therein to implement and give
effect to the Government order in G.O.Ms. No. 466 dated 8.6.1994 and consequently, to admit him to the I Year M.B.A. Course under the
Sports quota. Anna University is established under the Anna University Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''). It conducts several
courses leading to Graduation and Post-Graduation. M.B.A. course is one such to which only Engineering Graduates can seek admission. The last
date for submitting the application was 6.5.1994. Entrance examination was held no 29.5.1994. The result of the entrance examination was
published no 20.7.1994, whereas Government Order in G.O.Ms. No. 466 came to be issued on 8.6.1994. The classes for I Semester
commenced on 8.8.1994 and it was over in the month of November 1994.
2.1. The Appellant Petitioner did not secure marks above the cut-off marks in the entrance examination. Therefore, he could not be admitted.
However, the Petitioner claimed admission under sports quota. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner represented the University in the National
Tournament and he also holds several medals as National Tennis player. The direction issued by the State Government in the form of Government
Order related to reservation for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Backward Class candidates, However, G.O.Ms. No. 466 dated
8.6.1994 came to be issued for reservation of two per cent of the seats for the Post - Graduate courses in the Colleges and Universities in
Tamilnadu. The said Government Order reads thus:
Government of Tamilnadu--Abstract
Sports - Scheme to provide Sports quota of & 3% reservation in Under - Graduate Courses and 2% reservation in Post Graduate Courses in
Colleges and Universities in Tamilnadu - Orders - Issued.
Education, Science and Technology
(Y1) Department
G.O.Ms. No. 466 dated 8th June, 1994 Read:
From the member-Secretary, Sports Development Authority of Tamilnadu, Madras letter No. 51330/B4/93,
From the Director of Collegiate Education, Madras letter No. 78045/B1/93, dated 17.1.1994.
ORDER:
At the first meeting of the Sports Development Authority of Tamilnadu held on 10.7.1993 under the Presidentship of the Hon''ble Chief Minister, it
was decided to reserve 3% of seats in Under-Graduate Courses as sports quota for outstanding sports persons in the Colleges and Universities in
Tamilnadu. In accordance with this decision, the Member-Secretary, Sports Development Authority of Tamilnadu formulated a scheme to provide
sports quota in Under-Graduate Courses and Post-Graduate courses in colleges and Universities. The government have examined the said draft
scheme in consultation with the Director of Collegiate Education, Madras.
The Government, after careful examination, direct that a sports quota of 3% in under-Graduate courses and 2% in Post-Graduate Courses in
Colleges and Universities in Tamilnadu shall be provided. The Government have approved a scheme for this purpose as in the Annexure to this
order.
Signed....
Secy. to Government.
The case of the Petitioner is that as the State Government has got the power under Article 162 of the Constitution of India to issue directions of
the nature contained in the impugned G.O.Ms. No. 466 dated 8.6.1994 and such Government Order is the law, it is binding upon the University
and as such, the University cannot afford to disobey it and cannot refuse to give one seat for sports quota, and the Petitioner being the only
candidate coining for admission under the sports quota, he is entitled to be admitted to the M.B.A. Course. It is also the case of the Petitioner that
the Government, G.O.Ms. No. 466 dated 8.6.1994, came to be issued much earlier to the declaration of the results of the entrance examination
and therefore, it is not open to the University to say that on the date of the filing of the writ Petition, the course had commenced and as on today
one Semester is over.
Learned senior counsel for the Appellant has also placed reliance on a decision of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in V.R. Potdar Vs.
State of Maharashtra and Others, , Miss. Romini Susan Kurian Vs. State of A.P. and others, and also a decision of this Court in Sumathi, G. v.
The Director of Medical Education, Madras and 4 Ors. 1993 Writ L.R. 344.
On the contrary, it is the contention of the University that as per Section 6(3) of the Act, it is not at all open to the State Government to issue
any direction, which - falls outside the scope of Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Act, that the direction relating to reservation for sportsmen is
not covered by Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Act. Government Order in G.O.Ms. No. 466 dated 8.6.1994 is not binding upon the
University, since the course is a professional course and the Government Order in question is not intended to apply to professional course and the
Petitioner, having not secured the required percentage of marks, is not entitled to a admission. It is also the stand of the State Government that
G.O.Ms. No. 466 dated 8.6.1994 is not intended to apply to the professional course, because following the said Government Order, further
action is not taken to apply the said Government Order to professional course. In support of this stand, the file relating to G.O.Ms. No. 466 dated
8.6.1994 is produced and in the counter affidavit it has been specifically, averred that Government Order is question is not intended to apply to
professional course.
Having regard to the aforesaid contentions, the following points arise for consideration.
Whether in the light of the provisions continued in Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Act, is it open to the State Government to issue a direction
in exercise of the power conferred under Article 162 of the Constitution of India to the University in question to reserve certain percentage of seats
for sports men?
Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the directions sought for in the writ petition?
We have already pointed out that Anna University is established under the Act. It is governed by the provisions of the Act relating to Syndicate,
Academic Council, the courses to be conducted, admissions, to the courses and also the eligibility for admission to each course. Section 6 of the
Act relates to admission to the University. Sub-section (1) states that the University shall, subject to the provisions of the Act and the statutes be
open to all persons. Sub-section (1) specifically states that nothing contained in Sub-section (1) shall require the University, (a) to admit any course
of study and person who do not possess the prescribed academic qualification or standard, (b) to retain on the rolls of the University any student
whose academic record is below the minimum standard required for the award of a degree, diploma or other academic distinction; or (c) to admit
any person or retain any student whose conduct is prejudicial to the interests of the University or the rights and privileges of other students and
teachers. We are now concerned with Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Act. Therefore, we reproduce the same;
(3) Subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2), the Government may, by order, direct that the University shall reserve such percentage of seats
therein for the students belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Class as may be specified in such direction and where
such direction has been given, the University shall make the reservation accordingly.
Thus - Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Act empowers the State Government to issue an order or direction to the University to reserve certain
percentage of seats for the students belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes as may be specified in such
direction and when such direction has been given, the University shall make the reservation accordingly. It is a settled position of law that when the
field is occupied by the Statute executive power cannot be exercised. Sub-section (3) of Section 6 specifically provides that the State Government
can issue directions regarding the reservation of seats for the students belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes. It
is not possible to hold that the State Government, in exercise of its executive power, can issue a direction to the University to reserve seats for
students falling under the sports category. It is, no doubt, true that the executive power, under Article 162 of the Constitution of India, extends to
all matters to which the legislative power extends. But once that Legislative power is exercised and the field is occupied by the law, passed by the
legislature, unless that law is amended, the executive power cannot be exercised contrary to those contained in the law. Sub-section (3) of Section
6 of the Act is the law relating to reservation of seats for a particular class or category, and there is no scope in that to add another category other
than Scheduled, Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Backward Class. Reservation for sports category is an additional class or category, which cannot be
held to fall within Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Act. There is no other word or provision in Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Act which can
be interpreted by applying the rule of ejusdem generis. Hence, we are of the view that, in the light of the provisions contained in Sub-section (3) of
Section 6 of the Act, it is not open to the State government to issue a direction for reservation to other categories other than specified in Section
6(3) of the Act. However, such a direction, if approved by the Syndicate, would be binding upon the University. In the instant case, the
Government Order in G.O.Ms. No. 466 dated 8.6.1994 is not approved by the Syndicate. First point is answered accordingly.
Point No: 2: 8. Even assuming that Government Order in G.O.Ms. No. 466 dated 8.6.1994 is binding on the University, it may be pointed out
here that the stand of the government itself is that the said Government Order is not applicable to the professional course. Learned senior counsel
appearing for the Appellant tried to get over this stand of the State Government by contending that M.B.A. course in question is not a professional
course, and therefore, the question whether the said Government Order is applicable to the professional course does not arise. We find it very
difficult to accept this contention that M.B.A. Course is not a professional course. Admission to this course is restricted only to those who are
Engineering graduates. Further, the syllabus clearly provides that the course is only a professional course. However, learned senior counsel placed
reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Unni Krishnan, J.P. and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others etc. etc., . No doubt in that
case, the Supreme Court has evolved a scheme and guidelines on which the appropriate governments, recognising and affiliating authorities shall
impose and implement in addition to such conditions and stipulations as they may think appropriate as conditions for grant of recognition or for
grant of affiliation as the case may be. In Paragraph 210 it has been specifically stated that the scheme is not applicable to colleges run by
Government or University Colleges. The scheme shall be made a condition for grant of recognition of affiliation as the case may be. The course in
question is conducted by Anna University itself. It is not conducted by any affiliated the Anna University College. Therefore, by a specific provision
in the scheme, it has not been made applicable to the University Colleges. Therefore, it is not possible to hold that the said decision is of any
assistance to the Appellant. Even otherwise, in this case, the entrance examination is conducted to which all those who are eligible, irrespective of
caste, creed and residence, were entitled to apply. Then, the selection was made on the basis of the cutoff marks secured in the entrance
examination. Therefore, it is also not possible to hold that there is any illegality or irregularity Committed in the matter of admission to the M.B.A.
Course. For the view we have taken, we do not think it necessary to refer to the other decisions relied on by learned senior counsel appearing for
the Appellant.
For the reasons stated above, the second point is answered as follows: The Petitioner is not entitled to the directions sought for in the writ
petition. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
Learned single judge has also taken he view that the Government Order falls outside the scope of Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Act,
direction for reservation of seats can be issued only in respect of Scheduled caste, Scheduled Tribe and Backward Class candidates. Of course,
learned single judge has also given one more reason as to the delay. We are of the view that in the instant case, the Petitioner was approached this
Court in the month of August itself. It is not possible to held that he is guilty of laches.
For the reasons stated above, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.