IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO TUESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE Writ Petition No.16980 of 2009 Between: Syed Asrar Ul Haq Salman, S/o. Syed Abdul Khaliq, Aged about 21 years, Occ: Student, R/o 17-8-533/117, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad. …Petitioner AND Government of A.P. rep by its Secretary, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO Writ Petition No.16980 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is a graduate in commerce. He appeared for Integrated Common Entrance Test 2009 (ICET) for admission to Ist year MBA course in the state of Andhra Pradesh. He allegedly secured 52,974 rank in the ICET. But he was denied admission. The prospective rule, being Rule 1(d), stipulates that a candidate seeking admission into MBA/MCA course should have passed Bachelors Degree examination of not less than three years duration besides passing S.S.C. or equivalent examination with mathematics. The petitioner allegedly does not possess S.S.C. with mathematics. Therefore, he was denied admission. In this writ petition, he seeks a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in imposing such condition as illegal and arbitrary. At the stage of admission itself, learned counsel for APSCHE relies on the Division bench judgment of this Court in Kishan Chand Yadav v Government of A.P.[1] and submits that Rule 4 (ii) of A.P. Regulation of Admission into MBA/MCA Professional Courses through Common Entrance Test Rules 2006 (‘the Rules’, for brevity), which stipulates such condition, has been upheld by the Division Bench. In Kishan Chand Yadav (supra), the challenge was of Rule 4(ii) of the Rules inter alia on the ground that when the regulations framed by AICTE did not contain such stipulation, the State Regulations cannot impose such regulation. This Court rejected the contention and upheld that Rule 4(ii) of the Rules is not ultra vires the legislative power of the State. Reliance was also placed on judgment delivered by Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in Dr.Preeti Srivastava v State of Madhya Pradesh[2]. In view of this, the question raised is no more res integra. The writ petition, with the above observations, is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) October 13, 2009 Bvv [1] 2007 (3) ALD 638 (DB) [2] (1999) 7 SCC 120 : AIR 1999 SC 2894