IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12697 of 2008 Between: Mudili Sreeja, D/o. M. Vimal Chand Rep. by Natural Guardian and father M. Vimalchand S/o. late Satyanarayana, aged 47 yrs, Occ: Driver [APSRTC] Srikakulam Depot II, Srikakulam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of A.P., Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Higher Education, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge of Technologies, Rep. by its Vice Chancellore, IIIT Campus, Gatchibowli, Hyderabad. 3 The District Educational Officer, Srikakulam District, Srikakulam. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in denying selection of the petitioner for admission into IIIT Course for the year 2008-09 in the 2nd respondent University as highly illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutioal and consequentially this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to allot a seat in IIIT in the 2nd respondent University for the academic year 2008-09 as the per the merit obtained in the Mandal and may pass orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.R.TAGORE Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION The Court made the following : O R D E R : 1. This Writ Petition has been ﬁled by Mudili Sreeja assailing the action of respondents in not including her name in the selected list for admission into IIIT course for the academic year 2008-09 in Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge Technologies. 2. Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge Technologies (for short University) has been established as an autonomous organization by Government of Andhra Pradesh to educate the gifted rural students who may not have the beneﬁt of special coaching classes. The selection of students for admission into IIT course in the University is based on the Local Best Model at the Mandal level. There are 6000 seats in all the three institutions of the University. 85 percent of the seats are reserved for students from rural schools of Andhra Pradesh, 15 % seats are earmarked for meritorious students at State level. 900 seats are proposed to be ﬁlled up on the basis of statewide merit. 486 seats from open category, 135 from SC category, and 54 from ST category, 63 seats from BC-A category, 90 seats from BC-B category, 9 seats from BC- C category and 63 seats from BC-D category. The remaining 5100 seats are earmarked for rural students and these seats are allotted to 23 districts taking the population of the district as criteria. Accordingly, 204 seats have been allotted to Srikakulam District. 3. The petitioner studied SSC from Maharshi High School, Veeragottam Mandal and secured 543 marks out of 600 and stood ﬁrst in Veeragottam Mandal. Three seats under OC category were allotted for Veeragottam Mandal. She claims that she is the topper in Veeragottam Mandal and therefore she is entitled to allotment of seat in IIIT course for the academic year 2008-09 in 2nd respondent-University. According to the petitioner, students who are less meritorious to her were included in the selected list for admission into IIIT course. In nutshell, it is the contention of the petitioner that students appeared privately through Z.P.High School, Veeragottam cannot be treated as students studied in a rural school. For better understanding of the grievance of the petitioner I deem it appropriate to refer para 6 to 9 of the writ affidavit, which read as under: “ 6. It is submitted that in the Veeragottam Mandal there are more than 8 High Schools and from each High School one candidates, namely A.Vasundhara (SC) secured 533 marks, S.Tavitayya (ST) 334 marks, B.Vinay Kumar (SC) 441 marks and B.Divyarani (OC) 521 marks, V.Sateeshkumar (BC) 474, K.Rambabu (OC) 512, A.Vasudev (BC) 396 and N.Lalitha (OC), 502 marks. From the above statement, it is clear that all the selected candidates from the above have secured less marks than the petitioner herein. When the petitioner enquired from the University, the reply given that total 3 OC seats allotted for the mandal and the petitioner was placed at 4th rank. It is submitted that it is utter surprise to the petitioner herein though she stood 1st rank in the Mandal how the University denied her admission saying placed in 4th rank. The same action is highly illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. 7. It is submitted that the petitioner herein also found that one candidate namely Barnala Divya Rani got admission though she was not a regular candidate and studies privately and appeared through Z.P. High School, Veeragottam and exam written at Palkonda Mandal and not in this Mandal, but given admission the same is contrary to the University guidelines. 8. It is submitted that from Z.P. Girls High School, Veeragottam already one A.Vasundhara was selected with 533 marks and again another girl N.lalitha O.C. candidate selected with 502 marks. On the other hand, the petitioner though OC, but secured top marks i.e. 543/600 in the mandal, but not provided seat. The same action also contrary to the University guidelines. It is submitted that all the above O.C. candidates got admission secured less marks than the petitioner herein, now 21.6.2008 the respondent herein going to conduct counselling for admission into the course with the above named selected candidates, by depriving most meritorious candidate. 9. It is submitted that even the marks calculated by subject wise also the petitioner is having higher marks than the selected candidates. The petitioner also appeared in the SSC examination at Z.P.High School (Boys) Veeragottam as examination centre along with others and secured higher marks. It is submitted that the petitioner father also submitted a detailed representation to the concerned authority but not taken any action and proceeding with the counselling scheduled to be held on 21st of June, 2008 and the same is allowed the petitioner will be deprived though meritorious candidate. Hence, the present writ petition.” 4. Rule nisi came to be issued on 19.6.2008. An interim order came to be passed on the even date directing the petitioner to submit representation to the Governing Council of 2nd respondent University for considering her name to be included in the provisional selected list. Pursuant to the interim direction, the petitioner made a representation to 2nd respondent and thereupon 2nd respondent considered her representation and informed her that she is not the top student in Veeragottam mandal and that she secured 22 grade points and whereas Anjali Vasundhara secured 24 grade points. 5. The respondents ﬁled common counter aﬃdavit in W.P.No.12697 of 2008 and batch. The admission procedure has been detailed in the counter affidavit, which reads as under: Admission Procedure: 1. Admission to each constituent institute of this University will be after passing Secondary School Certiﬁcate (Tenth Standard) Examination in their ﬁrst attempt in that academic year from the State of A.P. 2. The total intake of the students from Andhra Pradesh will be 6000 at the rate of 2000 per each institute at Basara, Idupulapaya and Nuzivedu. 3. There will be no entrance examination and admission will be strictly based on student’s performance in the SSC examination. 4. Out of the total number of seats, 15 % of seats (as per the Presidential Order),i.e. 300 seats per institute will be open for state level toppers irrespective of their region, rural/urban background, category etc., while respecting the reservation norms. 5. In order to promote national integration and promote diversity, about 100 seats per institute (over and above 2000) seats will be open for other state students and admission will be on the basis of their combined merit in the State Board/AIEEE and interview. Preference will be given to the students coming from rural areas of the country. 6. For 85% of the seats, a region wise allocation will be as per the provisions of Presidential Order and based on the Census 2001. Accordingly, the region wise allocation is as follows: Coastal Andhra-42%, Rayalaseema-22 % and Telangana-36 %. 7. The region wise allocation will be proportionately distributed among the districts and further among Rural Mandals as per the share of their population vis-à-vis the district based on the 2001 census. The Tables below show the seat allocation by region and by district for each reservation category. 8. Seats in the district will be divided amongst all educational institutes (government/local bodies, aided and private) located in rural mandals subject to the condition that not more than one student from each category will be selected per school. 9. The category wise reservation of seats will be BC-25%, SC-15%, ST-6% and Open-54 %. BC category will be further subdivided into subcategories as per Government Order, 33 percent of the seats in each category will be reserved for women candidates. 10. Rural Mandal is taken as a unit in selection of suitable candidates. 11. Assignments to Mandals may often lead to fractional seats. These fractions are added with other neighbouring Mandals until a single seat can be allotted to a group of Mandals. 12. The top student from each school in a rural mandal is selected. The best student is deﬁned to be the top student in more subjects than his/her classmates in the same school. 13. The selection of best student is based on the principle of grading on the curve. The principle of grading on the curve works as follows: The top 3% of the students in each school in a given subject is given Grade A+ (4 points); the next 7% is given Grade A (3 points), the next 10% is given Grade A(2 points), and the next 30% is given a Grade B (1 point). A cumulative Grade Point Score is calculated by adding the scores for all the subjects for each student in every school. 14. The Grade Point Score for all the students in the State is computed. The Statewide Merit List candidates are selected representing the best students in each reservation category across the State. 15. When two or more students are the best students in the same number of subjects, then a tie-breaking procedure is applied as follows: (maximum points a student can get is 24). We ﬁrst select students who have the maximum number of subjects with 4 points). i) If there is more than 1 student who has the maximum number of subjects with 4 points, e.g., 2 students with 4 points in three subjects, then we break this tie by selecting the one with maximum Grade Point Score. ii) If there is further tie, that is they have same number of subjects with 4 points and Grade Point Score, e.g., 4 points in three subjects and 3 points in 1 subject, then we select the one with highest number of marks in English. iii) If there is further tie, then we select the one with highest number of marks in Mathematics. iv) If there is further tie, then we select the one with highest number of marks in Sciences. v) If there is further tie, then we select the one with highest number of total marks., vi) If there is a further tie, the older student (in age) will be selected. 16. After 900 students for the State-wide Merit list are identiﬁed, we proceed with the allocation of the remaining 85% of the seats. First, we identify the top student in each school within the Mandal, using the above tie breaking procedure where needed. From the top students in each school in the Mandal, the best students in the Mandal are selected based on Grade Point Score procedure as before. After the open category candidates are identiﬁed, selection is made in each reservation category based on merit within the category. Students are compared using the same criteria, i.e., one or more students with the largest number of A+s are selected (no more than one per school) based on number of seats assigned to the mandal, again using the tie breaking procedure, if necessary. At most 4 candidates, one each in OC, BC, SC and ST, can be selected from any given school. 17. The unselected best candidates in a mandal in each category will be added to a waitlist to be used in case a selected candidate does not apply. 6. The 2nd respondent ﬁled additional counter aﬃdavit. L.V.A.R.Sharma has sworn to the additional aﬃdavit. It is stated in the additional counter aﬃdavit that the petitioner is the top student in only four subjects with grade points score of 22 and whereas Alajangi Vasundhara is the top student in all six subjects with grade points score of 24 and Barnala Divya Rani and Kadagala Rambabu are top students in ﬁve subjects each with grade points 23 each. Paras 3 and 4 of the additional counter affidavit need to be noted and it is as under: “ 3. In reply to paras 5 to 8 of the aﬃdavit, it is submitted that the case of the petitioner is that she belongs to OC community studied at Maharshi High School of Veeraghattam Mandal, she secured 543 marks out of 600 and she stood No.1 in the whole of Veeraghattam Mandal. Her further grievance before this court is that one Barnala Divya Rani was not a regular candidate and studied private, though appeared through Z.P. High School, Veeraghattam, but wrote examination at Palakonda Mandal and not in Veeraghattam Mandal and having less marks than the writ petitioner, but she was selected. It is relevant to submit that there are three other top students under O.C. category who secured more grade points than the petitioner in Veeraghattam Mandal, but they studied in diﬀerent schools in Veeraghattam Mandal. The petitioner compared with other reserved categories though she belongs to OC which is impermissible. It is submitted that the grade points secured by the petitioner as well as other three candidates under O.C. category in the same Mandal are furnished as follows: Sreeja is the top student in only FOUR subjects with the grade point score of 22. Subjects Marks L1 94 L2 87 L3 87 MA 88 SC 91 SO 96 TOTAL 543 Grade Points 4 4 4 3 3 4 22 ALAJANGI VASU (201650) of Z.P. Girls High School, Veeraghattam mandal is the top student in all the subjects with the grade point score of 24. Subjects L1 L2 L3 MA SC SO TOTAL Marks 89 82 86 93 90 93 533 Grade Points 4 4 4 4 4 4 24 Barnala Divya Rani (1454316) of Z.P. High School, Veeraghattam mandal and is the top student in five subjects with grade point score of 23. Subjects Marks L1 89 L2 80 L3 85 MA 92 SC 83 SO 92 TOTAL 521 GRADE POINTS 4 4 4 3 4 4 23 Kadagala Rambabu (202278) of Z.P. High School, Thettangi village, Veeraghattam Mandal is the top student in ﬁve subjects with the grade point score of 23. Subjects Marks L1 86 L2 70 L3 81 MA 92 SC 88 SO 95 TOTAL 512 GRADE POINTS 4 4 4 3 4 4 23 It is submitted that A.Vasundhara got selected under OC category though she belongs to SC category. 4. As per the Census of 2001 three seats were allocated for OCs to Veeraghattam Mandal. The petitioner stands at So.No.4 at OC and therefore she could not get selected and other three candidates who secured more grade points as furnished above were selected. It is submitted that A.Vasundhara from Z.P.Girls High School, Veeraghattam was selected in state-wide selection list. Therefore, N.Lalitha got selected under OC category, her grade points are 23 and she is topper in ﬁve subjects, which reads as follows: Subjects Marks L1 83 L2 71 L3 79 MA 91 SC 87 SO 91 TOTAL 502 Grade Points 4 4 4 4 3 4 23 7. The petitioner also ﬁled reply aﬃdavit. It is stated in the reply aﬃdavit that respondent-University selected two candidates viz., A.Vasundhara and N.Lalitha from same Z.P. High Girls High School, Veeraghattom which is contrary to the admission rules. The respondent-University cannot pick two candidates from one school as best students. 8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for I.T. appearing for respondents. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a topper in Veeraghottam Mandal having secured 543 marks and therefore she is entitled for allotment of seat in IIIT course for the year 2008-09 in 2nd respondent-University. He further submits that N.Lalitha and A.Vasundara are selected from one and the same school, which is contrary to the admission rules, and therefore one of them is to be eliminated and the petitioner is to be accommodated in the said seat. 10. Learned Government Pleader for I.T. appearing for the respondents submits that A.Vasundara got selected under O.C. category in the state-wide selection list and therefore the petitioner cannot be equated with A.Vasundara. The admission procedure itself is very clear that 15% of the total seats are ear- marked for state-wide merit and 85% is for local candidates. A.Vasundara got selected in state-wide list under O.C. category. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be equated herself with A.Vasundara. 11. The admission procedure is very clear with regard to the selection of top student in the school. Selection of top student in the school is based on the principle of grading on the curve. The top 3% of the students in each school in a given subject is given Grade A+ (4 points); the next 7% is given Grade A (3 points), the next 10% is given Grade A(2 points), and the next 30% is given a Grade B (1 point). A cumulative Grade Point Score is calculated by adding the scores for all the subjects for each student in every school. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner tries to challenge the admission procedure on the ground that it is irrational. I do not see any substance in his contention since the very object of establishing the University is to educate the gifted rural students who may not have the better coaching classes. The rural schools have been deﬁned as schools located outside municipal and nagar panchayat areas irrespective of the type of management, government aided or private schools. The policy decision taken by the Government is to identify the local best student at the school level and thereafter at mandal level best student. 13. The scope and extent of judicial review of the High Court contained in Article 226 of the Constitution of India would vary from case to case, the nature of order, the relevant statute and also the other relevant factors including the nature of power exercised by the public authorities, quasi judicial or administrative. The power of judicial review is not intended to assume supervisory role or done the robes of omnipresent. The power is intended neither to review the governance under the rule of law nor do the courts step into the areas exclusively reserved by the Supreme less to the other organ of the State. Decisions and actions which do not have adjudicatory disposition may not strictly fall for consideration before a judicial review court. 14. The scope of judicial review of the policy decisions fell for consideration in UGAR SUGAR WORKS LTD. V. DELHI ADMN. [1], wherein it has been held as follows: “ Courts, in exercise of their power of judicial review, do not ordinarily interfere with the policy decisions of the executive unless the policy can be faulted on the grounds of mala ﬁde, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness etc. Indeed, arbitrariness, irrationality, perversity and mala ﬁde will render the policy unconstitutional. However, if the policy cannot be faulted on any of these grounds, the mere fact that it would hurt business interests of a party, does not justify invalidating the policy. In tax and economic regulation cases, there are good reasons for judicial restraint, if not judicial deference, to judgment of the executive. The courts are not expected to express their opinion as to whether at a particular point of time or in a particular situation any such policy should have been adopted or not. It is best left to the discretion of the State.” 15. In EKTA SHAKTI FOUNDATION V. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI[2], the Supreme Court held as under: “ The policy decision must be left to the Government as it alone can decide which policy should be adopted after considering all the points from diﬀerent angles. In the matter of policy decisions or exercise of discretion by the Government so long as the infringement of fundamental rights is not shown, the courts will have no occasion to interfere and the court will not and should not substitute its own judgment for the judgment of the executive in such matters. In assessing the propriety of a decision of the Government the court cannot interfere even if a second view is possible from that of the Government.” 16. In ALL INDIA IATDC WORKERS’ UNION V. ITDC [3], the Supreme Court negatived the challenge to the disinvestment policy of the government and held: “ The Government of India constituted the Disinvestment Commission and accepted the recommendation of the said Commission. A decision was taken by Inter-Ministerial Group and at the level of the Cabinet Committee on Disinvestment to divest each property belonging to ITDC individually rather than altogether or in groups. The decision of the Government of India to divest the property was a policy decision which was not in any manner contrary to the law of the land. The present writ petitions ﬁled by the employees merit to be dismissed since disinvestment was a policy decision of the Government of India. The said policy decision should be least interfered with in judicial review.” 17. The procedure adopted by the University with regard to admission of the candidates is in consonance with the spirit of the provisions of the Act called Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge Technology Act, 2008 (Act 18 of 2008). The object of the Act is to educate the gifted rural students who would not have the beneﬁt of special coaching classes. For admission to IIITs, Local Best Model at the Mandal level is selected. The procedure adopted by the University is transparent and there is no scope for any ambiguity with regard to selection of candidates to IIIT course and therefore the procedure adopted by the University cannot be termed as arbitrary or in violation of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 18. It is explicit from the additional counter aﬃdavit that the candidates selected from Veeragottam Mandal are toppers in more number of subjects when compared to the petitioner and they also secured more number of grade points than the petitioner. Therefore, the 2nd respondent-university is justiﬁed in not including the name of the petitioner in the selected list for admission in IIIT course for the year 2008-09 in 2nd respondent- University. 19. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. 12th November, 2008. (B.Seshasayana Reddy,J) cc in three days. tnb ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN} THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.12697 OF 2008 12TH NOVEMBER 2008 [1] (2001) 3 SCC 635 [2] (2006) 10 SCC 337 [3] (2006) 10 SCC 66