HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR W.A.Nos.1726/2002 and 125/2003 DT. 24-1-2011 WA.No.1726/2002: The Convenor, E-CET-2001 (FDH) Admissions, J.N.T.U. Hyderabad. …Appellant V. 1. G. Srinivas and another. ..Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR W.A.Nos.1726/2002 and 125/2003 Common Judgment: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) The writ petitioner who belongs to BC-A category and who passed Diploma in Polytechnic in Mines appeared for ECET (FDH) for the year 2001 and secured 56th rank. In the ECET only 30 seats are allotted to the Kakatiya University College of Engineering, represented by its Principal, Kothagudem, Khammam District (2nd respondent) and there are no other colleges in the State. According to the writ petitioner, one N. Sunil Kumar with 11th rank was allotted seat under BC-A category. He simultaneously appeared for EAMCET counselling and obtained a seat. As a result, the seat allotted to him remained unfilled. The respondents are under obligation to fill up that seat by a candidate belongs to same category as per G.O.RT.No.550, Higher Education (EC-B) Department dt. 30-7-2001 and he is the next eligible candidate to be allotted the said seat. When the writ petitioner approached the Convenor, E-CET-2001 (FDH), Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (JNTU) Hyderabad, first respondent, to consider his case in respect of available seat in the 2nd respondent college, nothing has been heard from him. Hence, he filed the present writ petition on 1-4-2002 for issuing a writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to allot the available seat fallen vacant consequent upon the vacation of the seat by N. Sunil Kumar, who secured seat in EAMCET-2001 counselling. The Registrar of Kakatiya University, on behalf of the first respondent, filed a counter-affidavit stating that M. Sunil Kumar, 11th rank holder was allotted to the second respondent college under BC-A category. He subsequently appeared for EAMCET counselling and obtained a seat. As a result, the seat allotted to the second respondent college remained unfilled. It is true as per G.O.RT.No.550 dt. 30-7-2001 unfilled seats shall be filled up by a candidate belonging to the same category. Since the Convenor is the competent authority to allot candidates to the second respondent college, the second respondent- college cannot admit candidates on its own. As the University did not receive any allotment in respect of the writ petitioner to the 2nd respondent college from the Convenor, it is not necessary for the second respondent college to enquire whether the writ petitioner is the next eligible candidate to be allotted or he is otherwise eligible to be allotted a seat in lieu of the seat vacated by M. Sunil Kumar under BC-A category. A learned single judgment of this court on 4-7-2002 after taking into consideration the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent, passed an order disposing of the writ petition with certain directions, but before signing the order, learned Government Pleader appeared and submitted that he did not have notice of the pendency of the matter and requested the court the order may not be signed. Thereafter, a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent stating that the second respondent college offers 4 years (Day Time) Degree programme in Computer Science Engineering, Electrical and Electronics Engineering and Mining Engineering Courses for EAMCET qualified candidates. Further 4-year (Part Time) Degree programme in Mining Engineering and candidates lateral entry scheme for admission into second year day time are available for ECET (FDH) qualified candidates in Mining engineering. During Phase-I of ECET (FDH)-2001 admissions conducted on 19-9-2001, 14 candidates upto the rank No.16 and one candidate of rank No.2 were admitted into 14 open competent seats under 4 year Part-Time scheme and one open competition seat of 3 year lateral entry scheme respectively. M. Sunil Kumar, who belongs to, BC-A category, secured rank No.14 in ECET-2001 Mining Branch and not 11th rank as stated by the writ petitioner and he has been allotted OC seat as per merit in ECET (FDH)-2001 at second respondent college and not in BC-A category. M. Sunil Kumar’s seat taking in OC category through ECET (FDH)-2001 in 4-year Part-Time B.Tech Mining course was cancelled as he joined 4 year day time B.Tech., Mining course through EAMCET-2001 stream. It is also stated that ECET (FDH) and EAMCET engineering are totally different streams as the admission programs and availability of seats are also different. It is further submitted that through ECET (FDH) Mining candidates are offered admissions in 4 year Part- Time B.Tech., mining (for 30 seats) and 10% of the seats in 4 year B.Tech., mining regular day time in second year (for 3 seats) through lateral entry scheme. As the seat allotted to M.Sunil Kumar under OC category in 4 year Part-Time Mining through ECET (FDH) has been cancelled, the immediate next meritorious candidate ie., rank No.16 P.Gopi, BC-A was given seat. Consequently, the seat of one U. Dasaratha Kumar, belonging to BC-B was converted as OC seat and the resultant BC-B vacancy remained to be filled. A learned single Judge who passed the order on 4-7-2002, after taking into consideration the counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent, singed the order on 29-7-2002 holding that in view of the contradictions, the admissions to B.Tech., (Mining) in ECET (FDH) course for the year 2001-2002 are required to be declared illegal, but having regard to the fact that the writ petition itself came to be filed in the month of April,2002 and course itself commenced sometime in the month of October, 2001, and this court is not inclined to make a declaration which would result in the cancellation of the seats made so far in favour of all the students, but allowed the writ petition awarding an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the writ petitioner to be paid by the State of Andhra Pradesh, which can recover the same on ascertaining the truth as to which one of the respondents ie., Prof.T.Bhaskar Rao and Sri A.V.Srikanth is responsible for creating such a situation. While disposing of the writ petition, learned Judge observed that according to the table furnished to the court, two candidates ie., Ch. Venkatesh and Gandham Venkata Kumar were allotted two seats, which are said to have been reserved in favour of BC-A category and they secured 32nd and 52nd ranks respectively. Chindam Srinivas who secured rank No.9 was allotted a seat in BC-B category. The said contradiction is inexplicable. Even according to the first respondent, there are 14 open category seats in which case a candidate securing rank No.9 could not have been allotted a seat in BC-B category as he is a meritorious candidate and could have obtained a seat in open category. Since the entire material placed is contradictory, the compensation was directed to be paid to the writ petitioner. In the affidavit sworn to by A.V.Srikanth, Principal, Government Polytechnic, Yadagirigudda, working on other duty in Commissionerate of Technical Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, filed in WA No.1726/2002, it is stated that Chindam Srinivas belonging to BC-B who was initially admitted in OC category of 4 year Part-Time (Mining) in Stream-2 has slided during reservation counselling into 2nd year regular B.Tech., (Mining) under Stream-3 in BC-B category. Since Chindam Srinivas belonging to BC-B has vacated OC seat, the vacated OC seat was filled with BC-B candidate with 32nd rank- S. Venkata Chary, as per G.O.RT.No.550 dt. 30-7-2001. In view of the clarification given by the first respondent, the conclusion reached by the learned single Judge who passed the order when the learned Government Pleader has not advanced his arguments made final without there being any plea with regard to admission of Chindam Srinivas into BC-B category even though he is entitled to secure a seat in OC category and giving an opportunity to explain the respondents about the discrepancy. Making the earlier order final drawing an inference on the two tables furnished to the court is not at all warranted. It is now explained properly that Chindam Srinivas, with rank No.9, who was admitted in OC category of 4 year part-time B.Tech., (Mining), he will have a right to slide in the counselling and claim BC-B category seat in the second year course. Therefore, in any event, the writ petitioner will not get admission into the seat vacated by either of them. As two seats were earmarked for BC-A, and the same were filled up with the candidates belonging to the said category who secured 32nd and 52nd rank, the writ petitioner, who got 56th rank cannot claim admission on the ground that earlier BC-A candidate got admission in OC category and on his vacation the next BC-A category candidate can be given admission. So far as awarding compensation of Rs.1 lakh for their not explaining admission of Chindam Srinivas, 9th rank holder in OC category into BC-B, in the additional affidavit filed in the writ appeal, it was explained that Chindam Srinivas was initially allotted to OC category but slided during reservation counselling in BC-B category. Naturally, the vacated seat has to be filled with OC candidate. In view of the same, the writ petitioner who approached the court nearly after six months of the commencement of classes ought not to have maintain and therefore, awarding of Rs.1 lakh to the writ petitioner deserves to be set-aside. The writ appeals are accordingly allowed. Consequently, WP No.6117/2002 shall stand dismissed. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J _________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR,J Date: 24 -1-2011 kmr