THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 23901 OF 2009 Dated 5th July, 2010 Between: L.Mohan Raj …Petitioner And The Principal Secretary and two others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri T.Balaswamy Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Education The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not considering the admission of the children of the petitioner in respondent No.2-Insitution as illegal and contrary to the spirit of Article 17 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to respondents 1 and 2 to admit his children under ‘Victims of Atrocities’ category by setting aside order dated 18.09.2008 passed by respondent No.1. I have heard Sri T.Balaswamy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. The petitioner was accused in C.C.No.440 of 2000 on the file of XV-Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally. He was acquitted of the said case under judgment dated 05.11.2001. On the petitioner’s private complaint, Crime No.318 of 2006 was registered against one person by name Ramkumar Tiwari, the Managing Director of Nirdosh Chit Fund Company Limited. Due to dereliction of duties on the part of the police in filing charge sheet, this Court is stated to have indicted the police officers for not filing the charge sheet in its order passed in Writ petition No.12699 of 2004. The petitioner pleaded that because of his malicious prosecution, he was forced to closedown his business and thereby starving himself and his family members. The petitioner approached the respondents with a request to admit his two children by name L.Gaurav Raj and L.Shreya Raj in their School under the quota of ‘Victims of Atrocities’. The said request was turned down by letter dated 18.09.2008. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though there is no statutory provision or Rule governing the functioning of respondent No.2, which provides for admission of the children of the petitioner under the category of ‘Victims of Atrocities’, still it is the constitutional obligation of respondent No.2, which is running on the Government funds to protect the victims of atrocities belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe categories. In my opinion, there is no merit in this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Article 15 of the Constitution of India empowers the State to take affirmative action to provide reservations in the educational institutions. In exercise of the said power, such reservations are being provided in the matter of admission to various Government institutions. Indeed such a reservation is provided by respondent No.1 even in respondent No.2-Institution. This being the admitted position, there can be no justification, whatsoever, for the petitioner to insist that respondent No.1 shall provide for a further reservation by creating another category under the name of ‘Victims of Atrocities’ belonging to the reserved categories. Such a request in the absence of any such obligation created by law cannot be either constitutionally or legally countenanced. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or arbitrariness in the impugned order passed by respondent No.1. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP No.31061 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 5th July, 2010 vrn