IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL No.832 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 16/06/2009 in WP No.787 OF 2009 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Kum. Trishala Kaviti, being minor Rep. by her father Kaviti Murali Krishna, S/o. K. Mukkalingam R/o. 9-1-69, Shyam Rao Compound, 33 S.D. Road, Secunderabad. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Convenor, Common Law Admission Test (CLAT), Nalsar University of Law, 3-4-761, Barkatpura, Hyderabad. 2 National Academy of Legal Studies and Research University, (NALSAR), State of A.P., Rep. by its Registrar 3-4-761, Barkatpura, Hyderabad. 3 National Law School of India University (NLSIU) Bangalore, State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Registrar. 4 National Law Institute University Bhopal, State of Madhya Pradesh, Rep. by its Registrar. 5 The West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences Kolkota, State of West Bengal, Rep. by its Registrar. 6 National Law University Jodhpur, State of Rajasthan, Rep. by its Registrar. 7 Hidayathulla National Law University Raipur, State of Chattisgarh, Rep. by its Registrar. 8 Gujarat National Law University Gandhinagar, State of Gujarat, Rep. by its Registrar. 9 Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University Lucknow, State of Uttarpradesh, Rep. by its Registrar. 10 Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law Patiala, State of Punjab, Rep. by its Registrar. 11 Chanakya National University of Law Patna, State of Bihar, Rep. by its Registrar. 12 National University of Advanced Legal Studies Kochi, State of Kerala, Rep. by its Registrar. 13 State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Law Secretary, Department of Law, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 14 State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Finance and Planning, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 15 State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 16 Union of India, Rep. by Ministry of Human Resources Development, Rep. by its Secretary, New Delhi. 17 The Bar Council of India, New Delhi, Rep. by its Chairman. 18 The Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad Rep. by its Chairman. 19 University Grants Commission, New Delhi, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi, Rep. by its Secretary. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.S.R.SANKU & KAVITI MURLI KRISNA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per GM, J) This appeal is directed against the order of dismissal passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.M.P.No.992 of 2009 in W.P.No.787 of 2009, dated 16.06.2009. 2. W.P.No.787 of 2009 is filed seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondents 1 to 12 in not providing reservation for OBCs and BCs for admission into LL.B and LL.M. Courses pursuant to Common Law Admission Test (CLAT), 2009, as illegal and consequently, to direct them to provide reservation for OBCs and BCs in under graduate and post graduate programmes with immediate effect. Along with the said writ petition, the petitioner filed W.P.M.P.No.992 of 2009 to direct respondent No.1 to keep proper number of seats vacant in LL.B and LL.M courses in respondent Nos.2 to 12 Universities, to be filled by the candidates belonging to OBC and BC, pursuant to CLAT, 2009. The said WPMP was dismissed on 16.06.2009 on the ground that there is no provision for reservation as per the admission rules in the respondent Universities and that unless the petitioner succeeds in the writ petition, no direction can be given as sought for. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though respondent No.1 is conducting CLAT, in some universities like Patna, reservations are being provided but respondent No.2 University is not providing reservation to the backward classes. His further contention is that as per G.O.Ms.No.629, dated 25.7.1974, the State is providing 25% seats for BCs and OBCs in respect of Government Junior and Degree Colleges. He has drawn the attention of this Court to Section 2(11) of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 (for short ‘the Act’), which defines ‘College’ as under: “College” means a college (including a Medical College established or maintained) and administered by, or affiliated to or associated with or recognized by, any University in the State and includes a junior college recognized by or affiliated to the Andhra Pradesh Board of Intermediate Education.” and stated that this Section clearly demonstrates that the definition of ‘College” is exhaustive and inclusive of Universities in the State and that the degree Colleges have to fall within the purview of the said Section. He relied upon G.O.Ms.No.629, dated 25.07.1974, and contended that the Rules of Admission apply to the Government Junior Colleges only and not to Degree Colleges including private degree colleges. The relevant portion of the said G.O. reads as under: “1. Admission to eighty-five percent of the seats after excluding the seats reserved for candidates from outside the State in every course of study provided by a Government Junior College or Degree College shall be reserved in favour of the local candidates in relation to the local area in which the colleges is situated as provided in these Rules…………” In the said G.O., the expression ‘or’ is used between Government Junior Colleges and Degree colleges and thereby, petitioner contends that the executive has not used the expression Government Degree Colleges, though they are conscious of these aspects. It means that it is only a degree college maintained by the private educational institutions and therefore, respondents 1 and 2 have to necessarily provide reservation in respect of OBCs and BCs. 4. On the other hand, Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has drawn the attention of this Court to Clause 6 of the Rules of Admission Into Government Junior Colleges and Degree Colleges in the State from 1974-75, of the Presidential Order, 1974 and the same is extracted hereunder. “6. There shall be no interviews and as such no selection committees. Admission shall be made by the Principals of the Government Colleges concerned following the rules prescribed by Government including reservations for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes. He also contended that prima facie, G.O.Ms.No.629, dated 25.07.1974 is confined and restricted to the Government Junior Colleges and Degree Colleges, but not to the private junior and decree colleges. 5. Heard both the counsel at length. 6. Article 15(4) of the Constitution provides as under: “Nothing in this article or in clause (2) of article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. 7. From a perusal of the aforesaid G.O., and Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India, we are of the view that unless the Government makes any special provision for reservation to backward classes, the Universities cannot be directed to provide the same. In these circumstances, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned. The Writ Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Post W.P.No.787 of 2009 after eight weeks. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Date:25.06.2009 Note: Issue CC forthwith. (Bo) sj