IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12755 of 2008 Between: V. Leela Venkata Chalapathi Rao S/o. V. Venkateswara Rao R/o. Ventrapragada Village, Pedaparipudi Mandal, Krishna District, Rep. by his Natural Guardian & Father Sri V. Venkateswara Rao. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhar Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Higher Education, A.P. Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge Technologies, IIIT Campus, Gatchibowli, Near Hitech City, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Vice Chancellore. 3 The District Educational Officer, Government of A.P., Krishna District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st and 2nd Respondents in not selecting the petitioner for admission into IIIT course for the academic year 2008-2009 though he is the Mandal ﬁrst rank holder of SSC examination in Pedaparipudi Mandal, Krishna District and allotting the seat to the students who secured less number of total marks than the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, irrational and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to allot a seat to the petitioner for admission into IIIT course for the year 2008-2009. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.CH.RAVINDER Counsel for the Respondents.: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION The Court made the following : O R D E R : This Writ Petition has been ﬁled by V.Leela Venkata Chalapathi Rao assailing the action of the respondents in denying selection to him for admission into IIIT course for the academic year 2008-09. 2. Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge Technologies (for short University) has been established as an autonomous organization by Government of Andhra Pradesh to educate the gifted rural students who may not have the beneﬁt of special coaching classes. The selection of students for admission into IIIT course in the University is based on the Local Best Model at the Mandal level. There are 6000 seats in all the three institutions of the University. 85 percent of the seats are reserved for students from rural schools of Andhra Pradesh, 15% seats are earmarked for meritorious students at State level. 900 seats are proposed to be ﬁlled up on the basis of statewide merit. 486 seats from open category, 135 from SC category, and 54 from ST category, 63 seats from BC-A category, 90 seats from BC-B category, 9 seats from BC-C category and 63 seats from BC- D category. The remaining 5100 seats are earmarked for rural students and these seats are allotted to 23 districts taking the population of the district as criteria. Accordingly, 279 seats have been allotted to Krishna District. 3. The petitioner studied SSC in Z.P. High School, Ventrapragada village, Pedaparipudi Mandal, Krishna District. He appeared for SSC examination with Roll No.0424094 in March, 2008. He secured 530 marks out of 600. According to the petitioner, he is a topper in the mandal. But, the 2nd respondent selected Doddapaneni Ushashri, Tikkisetty Umasankar, Karra Suresh and G.Phanindar, who are less meritorious to him. The marks secured by the above four persons are 528, 520, 445 and 523. 4. Rule Nisi came to be issued on 19-6-2008 and an interim order also came to be passed directing the petitioner to submit a representation to the Governing Council of the University for considering his name being included in the provisionally selected list vide WPMP.No.16451 of 2008. 5. The respondents entered appearance and ﬁled their counter aﬃdavit. The admission procedure has been detailed in the counter affidavit, which reads as under: Admission Procedure: 1. Admission to each constituent institute of this University will be after passing Secondary School Certiﬁcate (Tenth Standard) Examination in their ﬁrst attempt in that academic year from the State of A.P. 2. The total intake of the students from Andhra Pradesh will be 6000 at the rate of 2000 per each institute at Basara, Idupulapaya and Nuzivedu. 3. There will be no entrance examination and admission will be strictly based on student’s performance in the SSC examination. 4. Out of the total number of seats, 15 % of 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 etc., while respecting the reservation norms. 5. In order to promote national integration and promote diversity, about 100 seats per institute (over and above 2000) seats will be open for other state students and admission will be on the basis of their combined merit in the State Board/AIEEE and interview. Preference will be given to the students coming from rural areas of the country. 6. For 85% of the seats, a region wise allocation will be as per the provisions of Presidential Order and based on the Census 2001. Accordingly, the region wise allocation is as follows: Coastal Andhra-42%, Rayalaseema-22 % and Telangana-36 %. 7. The region wise allocation will be proportionately distributed among the districts and further among Rural Mandals as per the share of their population vis-à-vis the district based on the 2001 census. The Tables below show the seat allocation by region and by district for each reservation category. 8. Seats in the district will be divided amongst all educational institutes (government/local bodies, aided and private) located in rural mandals subject to the condition that not more than one student from each category will be selected per school. 9. The category wise reservation of seats will be BC-25%, SC-15%, ST-6% and Open-54 %. BC category will be further subdivided into subcategories as per Government Order, 33 percent of the seats in each category will be reserved for women candidates. 10. Rural Mandal is taken as a unit in selection of suitable candidates. 11. Assignments to Mandals may often lead to fractional seats. These fractions are added with other neighbouring Mandals until a single seat can be allotted to a group of Mandals. 12. The top student from each school in a rural mandal is selected. The best student is deﬁned to be the top student in more subjects than his/her classmates in the same school. 13. The selection of best student is based on the principle of grading on the curve. The principle of grading on the curve works as follows: The top 3% of the students in each school in a given subject is given Grade A+ (4 points); the next 7% is given Grade A (3 points), the next 10% is given Grade A(2 points), and the next 30% is given a Grade B (1 point). A cumulative Grade Point Score is calculated by adding the scores for all the subjects for each student in every school. 14. The Grade Point Score for all the students in the State is computed. The State wide Merit List candidates are selected representing the best students in each reservation category across the State. 15. When two or more students are the best students in the same number of subjects, then a tie-breaking procedure is applied as follows: (maximum points a student can get is 24). We ﬁrst select students who have the maximum number of subjects with 4 points). i) If there is more than 1 student who has the maximum number of subjects with 4 points, e.g., 2 students with 4 points in three subjects, then we break this tie by selecting the one with maximum Grade Point Score. ii) If there is further tie, that is they have same number of subjects with 4 points and Grade Point Score, e.g., 4 points in three subjects and 3 points in 1 subject, then we select the one with highest number of marks in English. iii) If there is further tie, then we select the one with highest number of marks in Mathematics. iv) If there is further tie, then we select the one with highest number of marks in Sciences. v) If there is further tie, then we select the one with highest number of total marks., vi) If there is a further tie, the older student (in age) will be selected. 16. After 900 students for the State-wide Merit list are identiﬁed, we proceed with the allocation of the remaining 85% of the seats. First, we identify the top student in each school within the Mandal, using the above tie breaking procedure where needed. From the top students in each school in the Mandal, the best students in the Mandal are selected based on Grade Point Score procedure as before. After the open category candidates are identiﬁed, selection is made in each reservation category based on merit within the category. Students are compared using the same criteria, i.e., one or more students with the largest number of A+s are selected (no more than one per school) based on number of seats assigned to the mandal, again using the tie breaking procedure, if necessary. At most 4 candidates, one each in OC, BC, SC and ST, can be selected from any given school. 17. The unselected best candidates in a mandal in each category will be added to a waitlist to be used in case a selected candidate does not apply. 6. Pursuant to the interim direction of this Court, the respondents considered the representation of the petitioner and communicated him that he is not the top student and one Jujjuvarapu Phanindra is the top student in the school where the he studied. The grade points score secured by the petitioner as well as Jujjuvarapu Phanindra are mentioned in the communication sent to the petitioner. 7. 2nd respondent ﬁled additional counter-aﬃdavit. It is stated in the additional counter-aﬃdavit that the petitioner is the top student in only three subjects with grade points score of 20 and whereas one Doddapaneni Usha Rani is the top student in ﬁve subjects with grade points score of 23. Para.4 of the additional counter affidavit needs to be noted and it is thus: “4. As per the population of 2001 two seats were allocated for O.Cs. to Pedapampudi Mandal of Krishna District. The petitioner stands at Sl.No.3 at O.c. and therefore he could not get selected and other two candidates who secured more grade points as furnished above were selected. The allegation that D.Usharani, T.Umasankar, who secured 528, 520 respectively, got selection, but the petitioner though secured 530 out of 600 was not selected is incorrect. The petitioner furnished 4 students names namely D.Ushasri, which is incorrect and her name is D.Usha Rani. So far as Karra Suresh is concerned is having the following grade points and he has been selected. It is submitted that the above said two persons also secured more grade points than the petitioner, which are mentioned below. DODDAPANENI USHA RANI (423482) from Z.P.High School, Dodapadu, Pedapampudi Mandal belongs to OC community with grade points score 23. Subjects L1 L2 L3 MA SC SO TOT Marks 90 79 85 94 89 91 528 Grade Points 4 3 4 4 4 4 23 TIKKISETTY UMASANKAR (424020) from Z.P. High School, Vanapamula, Pedapampudi Mandal, belongs to OC community with grade points score 23. Subjects L1 L2 L3 MA SC SO TOT Marks 91 75 81 96 85 92 520 Grade Points 4 4 3 4 4 4 23 KARRA SURESH (425750) from Z.P.P.High School, Pedapampudi Mandal belongs to SC community with grade points score of 19. Subjects L1 L2 L3 MA SC SO TOT Marks 83 64 70 84 60 84 445 Grade Points 3 3 4 3 2 4 19 8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Information and Technology appearing for respondents. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner secured 530 marks out of 600 marks and he stood as No.1 in his school, where he studied and therefore non- inclusion of his name in the selected list for admission into IIIT course for the academic year 2008-09 is arbitrary and illegal. 10. Learned Government Pleader for Information and Technology appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner stands at Serial No.3 in the school, where he studied and therefore, he is not a tope student in the school. Learned Government Pleader placed on record the list of students studied in Z.P.High School, Ventrapragada village. He took me to the admission procedure prescribed in the prospectus of the University for the year 2008-09. 11. As per the admission procedure, the petitioner secured A+ in three subjects and whereas Jujjuvarapu Phanindra and Pusunuri Jilekha secured A+ in four subjects. The grade points score secured by the petitioner is 20 and whereas grade points score secured by Jujjuvarapu Phanindra and Pusunuri Jilekha are 21 each. Since the grade points secured by the petitioner are only 20, he stood at Sl.No.3 and he is not the top student in the school. When once the petitioner is not the top student, question of includion his name in the selected list for admission into IIIT Course in the 2nd respondent University does not arise. Therefore, the action of the 2nd respondent University in not including the name of the petitioner in the selected list for admission into IIIT Course for the academic year 2008-2009 is in accordance with the admission procedure. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner tries to challenge the admission procedure on the ground that it is contrary. I do not see any substance in his contention since the very object of establishing the University is to educate the gifted rural students who may not have the better coaching classes. The rural schools have been deﬁned as schools located outside municipal and nagar panchayat areas irrespective of the type of management, government aided or private schools. The policy decision taken by the Government is to identify the local best student at the school level and thereafter at mandal level best student. 13. The scope and extent of judicial review of the High Court contained in Article 226 of the Constitution of India would vary from case to case, the nature of order, the relevant statute and also the other relevant factors including the nature of power exercised by the public authorities, quasi judicial or administrative. The power of judicial review is not intended to assume supervisory role or done the robes of omnipresent. The power is intended neither to review the governance under the rule of law nor do the courts step into the areas exclusively reserved by the Supreme less to the other organ of the State. Decisions and actions which do not have adjudicatory disposition may not strictly fall for consideration before a judicial review court. 14. The scope of judicial review of the policy decisions fell for consideration in UGAR SUGAR WORKS LTD. V. DELHI ADMN. [1], wherein it has been held as follows: “ Courts, in exercise of their power of judicial review, do not ordinarily interfere with the policy decisions of the executive unless the policy can be faulted on the grounds of mala ﬁde, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness etc. Indeed, arbitrariness, irrationality, perversity and mala ﬁde will render the policy unconstitutional. However, if the policy cannot be faulted on any of these grounds, the mere fact that it would hurt business interests of a party, does not justify invalidating the policy. In tax and economic regulation cases, there are good reasons for judicial restraint, if not judicial deference, to judgment of the executive. The courts are not expected to express their opinion as to whether at a particular point of time or in a particular situation any such policy should have been adopted or not. It is best left to the discretion of the State.” 15. In EKTA SHAKTI FOUNDATION V. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI[2], the Supreme Court held as under: “ The policy decision must be left to the Government as it alone can decide which policy should be adopted after considering all the points from diﬀerent angles. In the matter of policy decisions or exercise of discretion by the Government so long as the infringement of fundamental rights is not shown, the courts will have no occasion to interfere and the court will not and should not substitute its own judgment for the judgment of the executive in such matters. In assessing the propriety of a decision of the Government the court cannot interfere even if a second view is possible from that of the Government.” 16. In ALL INDIA IATDC WORKERS’ UNION V. ITDC [3], the Supreme Court negatived the challenge to the disinvestment policy of the government and held: “ The Government of India constituted the Disinvestment Commission and accepted the recommendation of the said Commission. A decision was taken by Inter-Ministerial Group and at the level of the Cabinet Committee on Disinvestment to divest each property belonging to ITDC individually rather than altogether or in groups. The decision of the Government of India to divest the property was a policy decision which was not in any manner contrary to the law of the land. The present writ petitions ﬁled by the employees merit to be dismissed since disinvestment was a policy decision of the Government of India. The said policy decision should be least interfered with in judicial review.” 17. The procedure adopted by the University with regard to admission of the candidates is in consonance with the spirit of the provisions of the Act called Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge Technology Act, 2008 (Act 18 of 2008). The object of the Act is to educate the gifted rural students who would not have the beneﬁt of special coaching classes. For admission to IIITs, Local Best Model at the Mandal level is selected. The procedure adopted by the University is transparent and there is no scope for any ambiguity with regard to selection of candidates to IIIT course and therefore the procedure adopted by the University cannot be termed as arbitrary or in violation of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 18. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. _________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date: 30th October, 2008. CS ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN} [1] (2001) 3 SCC 635 [2] (2006) 10 SCC 337 [3] (2006) 10 SCC 66