IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 11148 of 2008 Between: 1 Dr. G. Shravan Kumar, S/o. G. Krishna Murthy, R/o. 15-103/4, Beside MM Court, Narsampet, Warangal. 2 Dr. A. Shyam, S/o. A. Krishna, R/o. Girnibavi (V), Duggondi (M), Warangal (District) - 506 331. 3 Dr. S. Nagesh, S/o. S. Brahmaiah, R/o. 1-20/18, Srirama Colony' Perkit (Post), Armoor (Mandal), Nizamabad (District) - 503 224. 4 Dr. J. Naresh Kumar, S/o. J. Laxmaiah, R/o. Plot NO. 108, VT Colony, Nalgonda. 5 Dr. G. Srinath, S/o. late D. Gopinath, R/o. 6-4-361/5, Harinivas, Bholakpur, Secunderabad. 6 Dr. M. Praneetha Ram, S/o. Ramulu, R/o. Bellampalli, Adilabad District. 7 Dr. S. Srinivas, S/o. narsaiah, R/o. Gopaloor (Post), Elkathurthy Mandal, Karimnagar District. 8 Dr. S. Arjun, S/o. Dr. S. Jayanth, R/o. B-12, F-1, Vigneyanpuri Colony, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad - 500 044. 9 Dr. G.V. Venkata Sivaram, S/o. Seetharamaiah, R/o. D-316, Renuka Apartments, Anandnagar, Khairtabad, Hyderabad. 10 Dr. Md. Shafique Rehman, S/o. MA Nafi, R/o. 4-546/23, Mothkur, Nalgonda. 11 Dr. C. Harishm, S/o. C. Adinarayana Reddy, R/o. Room No. 236, Old Mens Hostel, Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad. 12 Dr. Pallavi Vijay Borkar. D/o. Dr. VG Borkar R/o. Flat No. 301, Hitech Towers, Central Ex-Servicemen Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad -59. 13 Dr. M. Deepthi, D/o. M N Charyulu, R/o. Flat No. 301, Classic Square Apartments, Padmaraonagar, Secunderabad. 14 Dr. ML Prashanth KUmar, S/o. Raja Narsimha, R/o. EWS-1, 1-18, 1-6-216/64/18, MCH Colony Parsigutta, Hyderabad =20. 15 Dr. Lakshmi Sangeetha, W/o. Dr. Chaitanya, R/o. Teja Hospital, Court Road, Punganoor, Chittoor District. 16 Dr. G. Chaithanya Kumar, S/o. Dayakar Reddy, R/o. Bharathi Nursing Home, Alloripeta, Alloripeta (Post), Nellore District. 17 Dr. D. Kalayana Charkavarthy, S/o. D. Narayana Rao, R/o.MIG 25, APHB Colony, Srikakulam - 532 001. 18 Dr. G. Srinivas, S/o. G. Chander Rao, R/o. 3-5-43, Kukatpalli, Hyderabad. 19 Dr. M. Sandeep, W/o.M. Neelakantam, R/o. 10-10-188, Nizamabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad 500 004. 2 The Secretary, Medical & Health Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 The Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada Rep. by its Registrar. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ or order or direction, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus i) declaring the notification No. Endt/4259/EA2/2007 dt. 19-5-2008 of the Respondent No.3 as arbitrary, illegal, void and contrary to Art. 14, 15(4) of the Constitution of India, and the same may be set aside; ii) Costs be awarded to the Petitioner, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.MAHENDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH & FAMI.WELFARE The Court made the following : ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy) The petitioners appeared in the common entrance examination conducted for the purpose of selection of candidates for admission into Post Graduate Medical Degree/Diploma Courses held by the Dr.N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, the third respondent herein. After the results were declared, the University issued a notification, dated 15.04.2008, proposing to conduct counselling and to admit the selected candidates. As provided for under the A.P. Reservation in favour of Socially and Educationally Backward Classes of Muslims Act, 2007 (for short “the Act”), 4% of the seats were earmarked for BC-E category. Counselling for those seats was scheduled to take place between 21st and 27th of April, 2008. A Larger Bench of this Court passed an order, dated 29.04.2008, directing that the admissions for the seats provided for under the Act shall not go on. Consequently, a revised notification, dated 11.05.2008, was issued cancelling the selections/admissions that have taken place thus far, and re-scheduling the counselling. The State approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the order, dated 29.04.2008, by filing SLP. On 16.05.2008, the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed an order directing that the counselling may be proceeded with, but the students shall not be admitted on the basis of the impugned Act. This, in turn, has resulted in issuance of a third notification, by the university on 19.05.2008. Under this, the notification, dated 15.04.2008, was not only revived, but also the selections and admissions made in pursuance thereof were treated as valid. A note was appended to the notification dated 19.05.2008 to the effect that the candidates for BC-E category shall be selected against their respective roster points and admission orders would be issued subject to the out come of the SLP pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and writ petition, pending before this Court. The petitioners assail the notification, dated 19.05.2008, on several grounds. According to them, in the process of implementing the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the respondents are blocking a large plank of seats to the extent of 4% and the same is untenable in law. Other grounds are also pleaded. Sri K.Rama Krishna Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the directions issued by the Larger Bench of this Court are clear in their purport and except that the State was permitted to proceed with the counselling, the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not, in any way, permit conditional admissions for BC-E category or to block any seats. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the second sentence in the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court prohibiting admission of students belonging to BC-E category covered by the Act would clarify the situation and the impugned notification cannot be sustained in law. He further submits that in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh[1], the seats that are now being blocked would go waste, unless they are filled by 31.05.2008, by suitable candidates. Learned Advocate General, who took notice at the stage of admission for the respondents, submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had categorically permitted the State to proceed with the counselling of candidates belonging to BC-E category also and the only restriction placed upon the State is as regards the admission of candidates so selected, for the said category. The various orders passed by this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court have given rise to issuance of three notifications by the third respondent-University, in quick succession, because of its obligation to comply with the calendar prescribed by the Supreme Court in Madhu Singh’s case. The first notification, dated 15.04.2008, provided for the counselling and admission for candidates belonging to BC-E category also, on the basis of the Act. The second notification, dated 11.05.2008, came to be issued in the light of the order passed by the Larger Bench of this Court, dated 29.04.2008. The process of counselling that has been taken up under the first notification was totally cancelled and no provision was made for candidates belonging to BC-E category in the second notification. The State went in appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The order, dated 16.05.2008, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reads as under: “The petitioner-State may go-ahead with the counselling but the students may not be admitted on the basis of the impugned Act. The High Court may go-ahead with the hearing of the case before it.” From a reading of this order, it becomes evident that the counselling, as such, was permitted, but the admissions on the basis of the impugned Act were not permitted. A clear distinction was maintained between the counselling, on the one hand, and the admissions, on the other hand. While no category of students was excluded from the purview of counselling, the admission of candidates belonging to BC-E category, provided for under the Act, is prohibited. Obviously, on account of the quick succession, with which the notifications came to be issued, from time to time, the University did inject an element of ambiguity into the third notification, dated 19.05.2008. For instance, the following observation was made in first paragraph of the notification: “Hence, the admissions/selections made pursuant to the said notification hold good for all purposes. The admissions of the candidates who have joined in the respective colleges within the stipulated time are confirmed.” Further, the following note was added: “The Counselling for BC-E category seats, selections will be made as per roster points, and admission orders will be issued subject to the outcome of pending SLP/WPs of Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Court.” A perusal of the extracted portions leaves an impression that the candidates belonging to BC-E category also were admitted, in pursuance of the notification, dated 15.04.2008, and the same are validated. So far as the note is concerned, it makes one to understand that the candidates belonging to BC-E category would also be admitted, subject to the out come of the SLP, or the writ petition. The learned Advocate General had informed the Court that not a single student belonging to BC-E category was admitted, on the basis of the counselling that was taken up, pursuant to the notification, dated 15.04.2008. Therefore, the question of any admission of a candidate belonging to that category being confirmed, or regularized, does not arise. So far as the note is concerned, we are of the clear view that it is totally misleading and travels beyond the scope of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. When the only liberty given to the State was to proceed with the counselling of the students belonging to BC-E category, the question of issuing any orders of admission with, or without any condition, does not arise. Therefore, the note is read down to the effect that the counselling for BC-E category would be taken up, but no orders of admissions with, or without any condition, shall be issued to the candidates selected under that category. On the other hand, issuance of orders of admission would depend upon the out come of the proceedings that are pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court. The grievance of the petitioners, as pointed out by their learned Senior Counsel, that, in case 4% of the seats earmarked for BC-E category are not filled up by 31-05-2008, they would go waste, and would not be available to any category of candidates, irrespective of the result of SLP or Writ Petitions, in view of the mandate of the Supreme Court in Madhu Singh’s case (supra); is, no doubt, genuine and worth being considered. As per the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madhu Singh’s case (supra), no seat, in any post-graduate course, can be filled up after 31st May, of the concerned year. The State or the Managements of the medical colleges incur expenditure running on an average to a crore of rupees on every post-graduate medical seat. The attention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as regards the special features of the post-graduate medical seats, does not appear to have been drawn, when the matter was taken up on 16-05-2008. This Court is virtually helpless, in the matter of ensuring that 4% of the seats in post- graduate medical courses, set apart for BC-E category, are not rendered waste. It is the Hon’ble Supreme Court alone, that can address the question, be it, as regards the manner in which, 4% of the seats in post- graduate medical course, for the current year, must be dealt with, or whether the stipulation made in Madhu Singh’s case (supra), as to the closure of admission is to be relaxed. If they are so advised, the petitioners have to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court for necessary directions. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:21.05.2008 _____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Note:Furnish C.C. in three days. (B/o) GJ/KDL [1] 2002 (7) SCC 258