THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE WRIT PETITION No. 18675 OF 2009 Between: M. Jupiter …Petitioner A N D Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge Technologies, Rep. By its Registrar, Andhra Pradesh State Council For Higher Education Building, JNTU Campus, Masab Tank, Hyderabad and another …Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No. 18675 OF 2009 ORDER Heard Sri N. Subba Rao, learned counsel representing the writ petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General representing respondents. 2. Though the matter is coming up under the caption for interlocutory, at the request of the learned counsel on record, the writ petition itself is being disposed of finally. 3. This writ petition is filed to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent University in allotting the rank of 35,808 as illegal and contrary to rules framed with regard to the reservations for hearing impaired candidates (Physically challenged) as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to allot a seat to the Petitioner in IIIT for the academic year 2009 under 3% quota earmarked for physically challenged persons particularly hearing impaired and pass such other suitable orders. 4. The facts in detail had been narrated in affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The father and the natural guardian of the petitioner had sworn to the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. It is stated that the 1st respondent University was established with an avowed object of imparting education, to reinforce core values of integrity, respect for all and care for environment etc., The degree programmes consists of 6 years of integrated curriculum. The Petitioner passed Xth Class examination conducted by State Board of Secondary education, Hyderabad in the academic year 2008-09. He secured first division. Immediately after issuance of the Notification, he made an application to the respondents indicating the marks obtained by him and also claiming reservation under ‘hearing impaired’ quota. The petitioner belongs to Category –III of Hearing Disability. 5. It is further stated that the petitioner had not received any communication from the respondents, he personally met the 2nd respondent on 31-8-2009 and informed her that his son i.e. petitioner applied for admission into IIIT for the academic year 2009-10 and his application was received by the University on 2-6-2009. The petitioner passed X class and secured First Class and eligible to a claim a seat in IIIT. He secured 70% marks in X class examination. As per the rules of the Secondary School Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad the children who are hearing impaired are entitled to write 4 papers only and they are exempted from appearing for Telugu and Hindi papers. As such, the petitioner who is a hearing impaired candidate appeared for 4 subjects in X class examination and obtained 280 marks out of 400. He secured 70% marks in X class SSC Examination. He also brought to the notice of the 2nd respondent that the petitioner has appeared for 4 subjects only in X class Examination and secured 280 marks. Without considering the same, the respondents have taken percentage of marks obtained SSC as 46.7 and assigned him rank of 35,808. In fact he secured 70% marks and if the 70% is taken into consideration, he would secured better rank. As such, he is entitled for a seat in IIIT in the 1st respondent University. However, the 2nd respondent herein expressed inability to consider his candidature. Thereafter, he made a detailed application on 1-9-2009 to the 2nd respondent requesting the 2nd respondent to consider the candidature of his son for allotment of seat in IIIT. However, no steps have been taken so far by the respondents. The counselling for admission into IIIT course is scheduled from 14-9-2009. If the counselling is completed, without considering the case of the petitioner, his interest would be adversely affected. 6. It is also stated that the list which published in the website shows that the Petitioner obtained 46.7%. In fact, he secured 70%. As such, 70% marks have to be taken into consideration to assign rank and to consider the candidature. If 70% marks are taken into consideration, his prospects would be improved and he would get a seat in the quota earmarked for hearing impaired. 7. It is also stated that as per the prospectus of the 1st Respondent university, the total intake of the students from Andhra Pradesh will be 6000 at the rate of 2000 in each institute. Out of which 15% of seats i.e. 900 seats are allotted for all the students and 5100 seats are allotted only for the students of rural mandals of Andhra Pradesh. Out of 900 students, 3% of the seats of reserved for physically challenged students i.e. 27 seats are reserved for the. As the petitioner is hearing impaired candidate comes under the category of physically challenged persons, he is entitled to be considered for a seat in IIIT in the 1st respondent University. In such circumstances, the writ petitioner approached this Court for appropriate direction. 8. Relevant G.Os. G.O.Ms.No. 909, Education © Department, dated 13-09-1972. G.O.Ms. No.115, Women Development, Child Welfare & Labour ( WH.DESK) Department, dated 30-7-1991. G.O.Ms. No. 198, Education ( Exams-I) Department, dated 18-8- 1987. G.O.Rt. No.1161 Edn. Education ( Exams) Department, dated 24th June, 1992. G.O.Ms. No. 56, Women Development, Child Welfare and Disabled Weflare ( DW) Department, dated 2-12-2003, were placed before this Court and submissions had been made on the ground that while working out the priorities the proper procedure had not been followed. 9. Respondents 1 and 2 filed counter affidavit. 10. In the counter affidavit it is stated that that Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge Technologies has been established through Act 18 of 2008 which came into force on 28-4-2008, under Section 5 of the Act, there shall be an apex body for all governance of the constituent institutes established under Section 3 i.e., Governing Council. The Governing Council shall be responsible for the general superintendence accreditation, direction and policies of all the constituent institutes. The powers of Governing Council are enumerated in section 5(2). As per section 5(2) (v), the Governing Council has the power to determine standards and procedures for admission into the constituent institutes which may include examination, evaluation or any other method of testing. Under Section 5(2) (ix), the Governing Council has the power to review, from time to time, the board policies and programs. Under Section 5(2) (xii) the governing council shall do all such other acts and things as be necessary, incidental or conductive to the attainment of all or any of the objects of the University. The main object of the University is to primarily cater to the educational needs of the meritorious rural youth of Andhra Pradesh. 11. It is further stated that three constituent Institutes have been established – one at Basara in Adilabad District, second at Nuzvid in Krishna District and the third at Rajiv Knowledge Valley (Idupulapaya) in Kadapa District. An integrated course of six years has been commenced in the above three institutions during the academic year 2008-09. The Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs declared the Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge Technologies as a State wide University vide order dated 27-8-2009. 12. It is further stated that as per the information furnished by the District Information System for Education (DISE),the writ petitioner belongs to OC category are studied in Govt. High School, Saidabad Mandal, Hyderabad District. The petitioner studied under private management under rural area. The last candidate selected in Pvt. Management, in PH (H) OC Category has 87.0% while the petitioner has 70.0%. 13. It is further stated that in so far as the physically handicapped quota is concerned 3% of the seats have been reserved for P.H. quota and are being filled up by adopting horizontal reservation. Interse merit amongst the P.H. students would be taken into consideration for filing in the said seats. In this case the petitioner secured only 70% marks after computing for 600 marks and the last student is selected for 87% of marks. Therefore, many students who secured marks in between 70% and 87% of marks. Therefore, the petitioner could not secured the seat. These specific stand had taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit. The G.Os. which had been relied upon, had been referred to above. The priority given by the 1st respondent had been specifically pointed out. 14. It is no doubt true that in the counter affidavit a statement had been made furnishing the marks and the reasons why the petitioner could not get the seats. However, the principal contention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner is that in working out the priorities the respondents had not followed the priorities as specified by the G.Os aforesaid. It is needless to say that the priorities as specified aforesaid may have to be followed while considering the candidates either to be selected or to be deleted in the process of selection. Inasmuch as this appears to be the simple complaint made by the writ petitioner in the present writ petition. 15. This Court is of the considered opinion that it would be just and proper to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents to reconsider the whole issue in the light of the G.Os aforesaid and take appropriate decision in this regard, at the earliest point of time within a period of two weeks preferably on or before third phase of counselling. 16. The petitioner is at liberty to make appropriate representation to the competent authority in this regard along with the G.Os. if the petitioner is so advised, let the same be considered in accordance with the law within the period specified above. 17. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ Justice P.S. Narayana 23rd September, 2009. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No. 18675 OF 2009 23rd September, 2009.