IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH 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.1774 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 24/11/2008 in WP NO : 16265 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govt. Information Technology, "D" Block, 3rd floor, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2. The Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge Technologies, Beside Telephone Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad, rep. by its Dean. ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 P.Preethi D/o.P.A.Motilal R/o. Anantasagaram, Nellore District, rep. by her Father and natural guardian P.A.Motilal S/o.P.Daniel, aged about 48 years, R/o. Anantasagaram Village & Mandal, Nellore District. 2 The District Educational Officer, Nellore, Nellore District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellants : GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : MR.K.S.MURTHY 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.1774 of 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Heard the learned Advocate General appearing for the appellants as well as Sri K.S.Murthy, learned counsel for the first respondent-writ petitioner. 2. This writ appeal, by the State, is directed against the order, dated 24-11-2008, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.M.P.No.21066 of 2008 in W.P.No.16265 of 2008, directing the respondents therein to admit the petitioner in the institution into the first year of IIIT course. 3. Appellant are respondent Nos.1 and 2, and respondents are petitioner and third respondent 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 facts that led to filing of this writ appeal, in brief, are as under: The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not providing her admission to the IIIT course in the second respondent-Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge Technologies, Hyderabad, though she belongs to Scheduled Caste category and scored 558 marks in the 10th Class examination. 6. A learned single Judge of this Court, after considering the submissions on either side and also the material available on record, through the impugned order, dated 24-11-2008, gave interim direction, the relevant portion of which reads as under: “The petitioner, prima-facie, was denied seat, on account of such exercise. Any delay of her admission would deny the benefit of instructions. The very object of establishment of the University and the institution is to enable the rural students, that too hailing from weaker and poorer sections, to pursue their further studies. There shall be interim direction to the respondents to admit the petitioner in the institution into the first year of IIIT course at Idupulapaya. Her admission, however, shall be subject to further orders.” 7. Aggrieved by the said order, the Respondents have preferred the present writ appeal. 8. It appears that the Government had evolved a policy, called as “Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge Technologies Admission Policy – May 7, 2008” (for brevity “the Policy”) for identification of the students of brilliance for the purpose of admission into IIIT course in the second respondent University. The procedure and admission rules were also prescribed by the said Policy, dated 07-05-2008. By the said Policy, the prime object of the respondents appears to be to cater to the educational needs of meritorious rural youth of the State, as the opportunities for rural students are significantly inadequate when compared to the students of urban areas. 9. It is not in dispute that the candidates, who pass in 10th Class are eligible for selection. The selection of candidates and their admissions into IIIT course in the University are subject to the procedure and the rules prescribed in the Policy. 10. This IIIT course is a Six Years course and the students, who secured highest marks in 10th Class, from the rural areas only will be selected. In other words, the students coming from or educated themselves in the urban areas will not have any benefit under this Policy. 11. As per the said Policy, 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. 12. 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. 13. Broadly, the procedure is that from each and every school, the topper will be selected as contemplated under clause (13) of the said Policy and clause (7) of the said Policy deals with the region-wise allocation. 14. It appears that the toppers of all the Schools in the rural Mandal will be pooled up and the students who secured highest grade from his/her school will be selected for admission into IIIT course in the University. In that process, the students, who stood top in different subjects or all put together will be identified as topper of the school and will be given the “grade points.” 15. It is also not in dispute that the ‘grade points’ would differ from school to school because of the variation in standards from one school to another. For Eg:- A topper of a particular school in a Mandal, who scored 400 marks may be given 4 grade points and the topper of a school of another Mandal may be given 3 grade points, though secured higher marks. Therefore, it appears that the topper of the school would be the priority in order to pool them up in the Mandal for the purpose of admission into IIIT course in the University and it should be remembered that such a topper of a particular school in that Mandal would carry the same grade as was allotted to him. 16. Therefore, from the above system, the toppers of that Mandal would be selected. Ultimately, the Mandal is being taken as a Unit for the purpose of selection for admission into IIIT course in the University. In other words, the Policy of the State had percolated to the level of rural areas of each Mandal in order to promote educational opportunities to all sections of students, while strictly adhering to the norms of reservation policy. However, we are not inclined to go into the minute details of the Policy. 17. Another important point to be noted in the selection process is that if the number of seats of a Mandal are pooled up and fraction is allotted to a Mandal, that fraction would be added to the fraction of another Mandal, in order to make one seat more and such a seat is specifically allotted to a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste community. Such allotment to Scheduled Caste candidate is in addition to the quota prescribed under the reservation policy. 18. In the present case, the grievance of the petitioner is that she secured about 558 marks in Anantasagaram Mandal of Nellore District and her grade points are ‘17’. Some fractions have remained in this Mandal. Therefore, as per the Policy, these fraction points have to be added to the neighbouring Mandal in order to make one seat, which is meant for another Scheduled Caste candidate. 19. Further, it is on record that the petitioner stood as No.3 in the order of merit. There are two other candidates viz., (1) Ms. Satyala Lakshmamma, and (2) Kothapalli Mahendra, who secured more grade points than the petitioner. While the petitioner secured 17 grade points, the above said two candidates have secured 18 grade points each. 20. In this context, the learned Advocate General submitted that the remaining fraction points have been added to Vidavalur Mandal of Nellore District, and as a result, a candidate by name P.Ravindra, who scored about 478 marks, was selected. 21. There is a difference between the marks scored by the petitioner as well as the candidate, who got selected with lesser marks. But, it is to be seen that as per the Policy, the candidate, who was selected from Vidavalur Mandal, scored more grade points (22 grade points) than the petitioner. 22. To be more precise, in Anantasagaram Mandal, where the petitioner had studied, she is the third candidate in merit list and when the fraction points are added to the other Mandal, she has been relegated to the fourth place, inasmuch as there are 3 other candidates, who obtained more grade points than the petitioner. 23. From the above, it appears that it is the grade points of that school, which is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of selection for admission into IIIT course in the University, but not the total number of marks. The reason accorded by the learned Advocate General is simple i.e., it is the Mandal that is taken as a Unit and gradation of marks would vary from school to school, inasmuch as it is the toppers of that school will be selected and they carry the grade points till the entire process of selection is over upto the Mandal level, particularly in case where this fractions of two Mandals are clubbed together in order to make one seat more for the purpose of selecting a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste community. 24. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned Advocate General that, broadly the Policy of the Government is to provide educational opportunities in IIIT course for the students belonging to rural areas only and, in that process, a specific policy has been evolved, which cannot be deviated. 25. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner are two fold— firstly, the comparison of the students belonging to Scheduled Caste community should be made only with another student of the same community, otherwise there is every possibility of the candidates being selected from Forward Caste community only; and secondly, Anantasagaram Mandal in which the petitioner had studied, instead of being amalgamated with the neighbouring Mandals for the purpose of fraction points, had been amalgamated with Vidavalur Mandal, which is far away from Anantasagaram Mandal and as a result of which the petitioner had lost the opportunity of her getting selection. 26. In response to the said contentions, the learned Advocate General submitted that even assuming that Anantasagaram Mandal, where the petitioner had studied, is amalgamated with any other neighbouring Mandal, she will not be selected as per the statistics provided to the Court as well as the petitioner. 27. However, as there is some criticism from the learned counsel for the petitioner that upon the instructions of the State Board of Secondary Education, the fractions were added to the other Mandal, the same had been repelled by the learned Advocate General that there is no possibility of adding this Mandal to other Mandals for the purpose of fractions. Therefore, they resorted to add Anantasagaram Mandal with another Mandal, which is far away from it. 28. We cannot express any view as regards the validity or otherwise of the decision taken by the authorities. However, from the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2, it is to be seen that upon the information furnished by the Board of Secondary Education, this arrangement of amalgamation of Anantasagaram Mandal with Vidavalur Mandal had taken place. Therefore, we cannot go into the question as to whether the policy adopted by the Government is valid or not, and under what circumstances the amalgamation of these Mandals had taken place. 29. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that comparison of Scheduled Caste students should be made only with another student of the same community belonging to the same school also found to be not acceptable, inasmuch as the apprehension that the students of other community would knock away the opportunity of a Scheduled Caste student is ruled out by virtue of the implementation of the reservation policy. 30. However, the above observations of this Court are purely prima- facie in nature and we are making it clear that the said observations are not the crystallised opinion of this Court. 31. After all, balance of convenience and prima-facie case, predominantly, would be gone into while granting any interim direction. Of course, in certain cases where the decision and the implementation thereof is found to be apparently arbitrary, this Court can interfere at the interlocutory stage. 32. Therefore, we find that there is no prima-facie case in favour of the petitioner. 33. Another important point to be noted is that one Sri P.Ravindra was already selected and got admission into IIIT course about five months ago and to unsettle his selection, at this stage, may cause prejudice to him and further that he is not made a party to the writ petition. We are not expressing any view on this issue also, because it is for the learned single Judge to go into that aspect and express his view after examining the issue, in detail. 34. At this stage, the learned Advocate General had relied on some observations of the apex Court in STATE OF U.P. v. RAMONA PERHAR[1], which are worth mentioning, and the same reads under: “This Court has emphasised in several decisions that passing of interim orders – more particularly of a mandatory nature like the present one – is neither a matter of course nor a matter of charity. The power to grant interim orders is coupled with the duty to consider all the relevant facts and legal principles relevant in that behalf. Admissions to educational institutions should not be granted by interim orders – at any rate, not without fully hearing the respondents.” 35. Therefore, in cases of the present nature, which deals with the admission into the academic institutions, it is expedient for the Courts to hear all the contesting parties, in detail, before passing any interim order. Otherwise, the interim order granted, if any, may cause prejudice to other persons. 36. For the aforementioned reasons, we are not convinced with the reasoning accorded by the learned single Judge while granting interim order directing the respondents to admit the petitioner in the institution into the first year of IIIT course and, as such, the same cannot be sustained for the reason that the same would adversely affect the other selected candidate, who got admission into IIIT course and who is not made a party to the writ petition. Therefore, the interim order, dated 24-11-2008, passed by the learned single Judge is liable to be set aside. 37. However, the learned Advocate General suggested that the petitioner can opt for amalgamation of Anantasagaram Mandal for the purpose of fraction points with any of the neighbouring Mandals or, for that matter, with any of the Mandals identified as rural Mandals, and if she is able to get a seat, certainly her case would be considered and opportunity would be accorded to her. 38. In the light of the submission made by the learned Advocate General, the petitioner is given liberty to opt for amalgamation of Anantasagaram Mandal for the purpose of fraction points with any other Mandal, identified as rural Mandal, and if she gets a seat, in that process, the same shall be considered by the respondents. This exercise shall be completed upon the application being made by the petitioner opting for amalgamation of Anantasagaram Mandal with any other Mandal, with utmost expedition, preferably on or before 20-01-2009, otherwise the case of the petitioner will be decided on merits at the time of final disposal of the writ petition. 39. However, we make it clear that the observations made by this Court shall not be treated as the observations made basing on the merits of the case and the learned single Judge would decide the writ petition on merits, regardless of any of the observations made hereinabove. 40. In view of the importance of the issue involved in the writ petition, Registry is directed to post the writ petition for final hearing on 21-01-2009, subject to part heard. 41. With the above observations and directions, the writ appeal is allowed, at the stage of admission, setting aside the impugned order, dated 24-11-2008, passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.M.P.No.21066 of 2008 in W.P.No.16265 of 2008. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA __________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH 29-12-2008. NOTE: Issue C.C. in one week. (B/O) Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R. VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No.1774 of 2008 29-12-2008 (Msr) [1] AIR 1995 SC 241