THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE WRIT PETITION No. 19258 OF 2009 Between: Shaik Kabul Mubeena …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 …Respondent THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No. 19258 OF 2009 ORDER Heard Sri P. Kishore Rao, learned counsel representing the writ petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General representing respondent. 2. This writ petition is filed to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent University in not providing admission to the petitioner to the International Institute of Information Technology (IIIT) course of study of six years duration for the academic year 2009- 2010 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and direct the respondent University to provide admission to the petitioner to the course of study as per her merit and pass such other suitable orders. 3. Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner had pointed out to the representation made in detail and several objections which had been raised and would maintain that in the light of the objections which had been raised, if the case of the petitioner to be considered the petitioner would get a seat. 5 . On the contrary learned Additional Advocate General had pointed out to the relevant paras of the counter affidavit and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances in view of the peculiar fact situation the case of the petitioner would be reconsidered. 6. Heard the counsel. 7. The relief prayed for already had been referred to supra. Though the matter is coming under the caption of Interlocutory at the request of the counsel on record, the writ petition is disposed of finally. 8. The father and the natural guardian of the petitioner has sworn to the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. It is stated that his daughter secured 524 marks out of 600. She has studied in Government High School, Panyam. She was aiming to secure admission in the first year of Information Technology course of study for the academic year 2009-2010 administered by the respondent University. The petitioner belongs to B.C.-E. Pursuant to the notification issued by the respondent University calling for applications for admission to the course of study imparted by the respondent University during the academic year 2009-2010, the petitioner applied for the same. According to the prospectus a total of 223 seats are allotted to Kurnool District out of which 115 seats are for open competition and 10 seats for B.C.-E Category. 9. It is also stated that in August, 2009 the respondent University released list of candidates selected for admission and in the said list under the heading of BC-E the name of the petitioner was shown against Sl.No.8. For the reasons best known to the respondent University, the list was withdrawn and the revised list is published on 1-9-2009. In the said list a perfunctory glance would disclose lot of illegalities. A glance at the list released by the respondent University would show that 91 students studied from Government schools were provided admission against the open competition vacancies and the cut of percentage of marks of the last OC candidate selected was 84.2. 32 students who have pursued course of study from private schools were given admission against OC vacancies and the cut of mark of last candidate selected was 87. As against 115 seats advertised for OC, 123 are selected. No reasons are coming forth as to how excess OC candidates are selected. Be that as it may, The petitioner secured 87.3% and therefore, she has secured more percentage of marks than the last OC candidate from Government Schools and private schools. Against the vacancies reserved for B.C.-E , 12 students from Government schools were selected. Out of 12, 10 are general candidates and 2 are physically handicapped. The last candidate from Government Schools secured 88.3% of marks and two Physically Handicapped candidates secured 85.8 and 82.3 percentage of marks. Two students from Private Schools were given B.C.-E seats and last of the two students secured 91.7% of marks. The brief analysis of the date given above would demonstrate that the illegality in the selection of candidates runs through the length and breadth of the admission process. Meritorious candidates are denied admission and the candidates of their choice were selected. 10. It is also stated that in terms of the principle of reservation to various social groups, persons who secured normal standard merit have to be selected against open competition vacancies and the vacancies reserved for various social groups have to be filled up by lower meritorious candidates. A glance through the merit list discloses that this principle is followed more in breach resulting in large scale illegalities. 11. On further analysis of the selection list, the following irregularities are also notice. The selection is intended to be made District wise but for the reasons best known, the selection is made Mandal-wise leading to several illegalities. Further more, without any rhyme or rhythm seats are allotted to private schools. In panyam Mandal, there are only two private schools whereas 7 seats are allotted. In Allagadda Mandal, there are 15 private schools, but only 3 seats are allotted. In Benaganapally Mandal, there are 6 private schools, but only 3 seats are allotted. Similarly, in Koyalakuntla Mandal, only 2 seats are allotted. The reservation principle in favour of women is also not followed. Far less number of seats are allotted to women than required. 12. It is further stated that as per the scheme evolved by the respondent University, out of 6000 seats in three institutions, 5100 are reserved in favour of students from Rural areas. Out of this, 70% of the seats are reserved in favour of students from Government Schools, 20% seats are reserved in favour of students from Private Schools and 10% are reserved in favour of students from residential schools. A brief analysis of the statistics available would disclose that this percentage is not followed and far in excess of 20% and 10% respectively are allotted to students from private schools/residential schools. 13. It is also stated that the action of the 1st respondent University in not allotting seat to the petitioner even though she secured better merit is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, denial of right of the petitioner to secure admission in IIIT course of study administered by the respondent University according to her merit and social status of B.C.- E is illegal and unconstitutional. 14. It is further stated that the respondent University is in the process of issuing call letters for counselling for allotment of seats in three institutions and the process is likely to be completed shortly and the academic session is likely to commence in the first week of October, 2009. As there is urgency and unless a direction is issued to provide admission to the petitioner, grave prejudice would be caused and the same is irreparable. The petitioner has higher merit as compared to last O.C. candidate selected and last B.C.-E candidate selected from Government Schools and therefore, denying admission is per se illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. In such circumstances, the writ petition had been filed 15. A representation was made by the father of the petitioner, dated 2-9-2009 also had been placed before this Court. The contents being self-explanatory, need not be elaborated. 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. It is further stated that as per the information furnished by the District Information System for Education (DISE),the writ petitioner ( Roll No. 20144940) belongs to B.C.-E Category and studied in Govt. High School, Panyam, in Panyam Mandal, Kurnool District under Rural area in Government school. 19. It is also stated that according to the admission procedure, petitioner can only be considered for admission in Rural seats. From Panyam Mandal, Kurnool District, in Government Management under in B.C.-E Category last selected candidate has got 88.3%, whereas petitioner secured 87.3% only. Hence, the petitioner was not selected to the Respondent University. 20. In the light of the representation, which had been already referred to supra and also the objections raised in this regard. Further, the material placed before this Court and the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is a fit matter where the case of the petitioner to be reconsidered in accordance with the Rules and the Guidelines governing the field. 21. Accordingly, let the respondents reconsider the case of the petitioner preferably within a period of two weeks, at any rate before finalization of the third phase of counselling in accordance with law. 22. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. ______________________ Justice P.S. Narayana 23rd September, 2009. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No. 19258 OF 2009 23rd September, 2009.