IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No.1737 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 12/11/2008 in WP NO : 12697 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Mudili Sreeja, D/o. M. Vimal Chand Rep. by Natural Guardian and father M. Vimalchand, S/o. late Satyanarayana, aged 47 yrs, Occ: Driver [APSRTC] Srikakulam Depot II, Srikakulam. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Government of A.P., Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Higher Education, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge of Technologies, Rep. by its Vice Chancellore, IIIT Campus, Gatchibowli, Hyderabad. 3 The District Educational Officer, Srikakulam District, Srikakulam. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant : MR.M.R.TAGORE Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R. VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No.1737 of 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned Government Pleader for General Administration appearing for the respondents. 2. This writ appeal is directed against the order, dated 12-11-2008, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.12697 of 2008 dismissing the writ petition. 3. Appellant is the petitioner and respondents are respondents in the writ petition. 4. For the sake of convenience, in this judgment, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the writ petition. 5. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not including her name in the selected list for admission into IIIT course for the academic year 2008-09 in the second respondent-Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge Technologies, Hyderabad. 6. It appears that a procedure has been adopted by the respondents for identification of the students of brilliance for the purpose of admission into IIIT course in the second respondent University. As per the said procedure, the total intake of topper students in the State will be 6000 at the rate of 2000 per each institute at Basara, Idupulapaya and Nuziveedu. Out of which, 15 per cent of the seats (as per the Presidential Order) i.e., 300 seats per institute will be open for State level toppers, irrespective of their region, rural/urban background category, while respecting the reservation norms. 7. Further, from every District, from every school from a Mandal, toppers will be selected and they will be pooled up, out of which the top rankers will be selected for allotment of different institutions. 8. The petitioner belongs to Z.P. High School, Veeragottam, Srikakulam District. From the material made available to the Court, it appears that 3 other candidates also scored higher marks than the petitioner. 9. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that out of said three other candidates, who scored higher marks, one is a woman candidate and she was shown as a student of Z.P. Boys High School. So far as the other two candidates are concerned, they did not study in the same school. 10. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, exfacie, is not sustainable, inasmuch as, as per condition No.10 of the procedure prescribed, Rural Mandal is taken as a unit in selection of suitable candidates. So it is irrelevant whether a particular candidate is studying in a Boys High School or Girls High School. Accordingly, when a student, who scored higher marks, is pooled up on the basis of the Rural Mandal as a unit, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be sustained. 11. Even assuming, for a moment, that particular female candidate is excluded from consideration, still there are two other candidates above the petitioner, who scored higher marks than the petitioner from that Mandal (unit). 12. In other words, it is not the school alone that should be considered as a unit. The school is a unit only for the purpose of selecting the topper of the school, which are meant for inclusion in the State list. So far as the others are concerned, the candidates whoever scored higher marks will be rather pooled up in the unit, which is the Mandal. In that process, obviously, there are other students, who scored higher marks than the petitioner. Therefore, the various contentions raised by the petitioner cannot be sustained. 13. In fact, the learned single Judge had elaborately considered the policy of the Government, which cannot, in normal course, be challenged except in cases where there is apparent arbitrariness and illegality. No arbitrariness or irrationality is palpable from the selection process of the candidates for admission into IIIT course in the second respondent University. Therefore, the learned single Judge had rightly passed the impugned order, dated 12-11-2008, dismissing the writ petition. 14. For the foregoing, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order, dated 12-11-2008, passed by the learned single Judge, warranting interference by this Court and the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. 15. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed, at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA __________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH 18-12-2008. Msr. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R. VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No.1737 of 2008 18-12-2008 (Msr)