THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.21614 of 2009 DATED 13.10.2009 BETWEEN: Ms.Obili Vinitha … Petitioner AND State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad And others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.21614 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner who belongs to Scheduled Tribe (ST) studied 10th Class in St.Mary’s High School, Railway Koduru, Kadapa District. She passed public examination with 88.5% marks. She applied to second respondent University for admission to six year integrated IIIT coruse. She alleges that she was one of the students included in the short listed candidates in Railway Koduru Mandal, but her name was not included in the Mandal list. She further alleges seven seats are earmarked for ST candidates and that she secured highest marks in Railway Koduru Mandal among ST candidates and that though she was selected as one of the ten candidates in the Mandal, she was not given admission. She also alleges that still seats are vacant and she can be considered for admission to one of the seats. At the stage of Admission itself, learned Government Pleader for General Administration Department for respondents obtained instructions and submits that seven seats are earmarked for ST in Kadapa District and these seats are distributed on the overall merit of all the candidates. The petitioner studied in a private school for which 20% of the seats are reserved. One seat is reserved for private school candidate in ST category, which was allotted to a candidate with 92.7% and therefore, petitioner who got 88.5% could not come up for selection. He has placed before this Court the Kadapa ST Select List, which supports his contention. After hearing learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for GAD, this Court is convinced that the more meritorious candidate among ST candidates in Kadapa District was admitted to IIIT course and there is no illegality in the same. However, this Court observes that if any seats are vacant, the case of petitioner may be considered among others on its own merits. The writ petition, with the above observations, is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 13.10.2009 pln