IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13535 of 2008 Between: Mater B. Sashi Sekhara Sharma, S/o. B. Chandra Shekhara Sharma, Minor Rep. by his Father and natural Guardian, Mr. Chandra Shekhara Sharma, S/o. B. Anantha Raja Sharma, Aged 40 years, Occ: Government Service, R/o. Shankarampet (A) Village and Mandal, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Techical Education, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 Andhra Pradesh Board of Secondary Education, Rep. byits Secretary, Hyderabad. 3 Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge Technologic, Rep. byits Registrar, Hyderabad. 4 The District Collector, Medak District, Sanga Reddy. 5 Mandal Educational Officer, Shankarmet (A) Mandal, Medak District. 6 Mr. Rathod Ravinder, S/o. Rathod Ghamsingh, Minor Rep. by his father and Natural Guardian, Mr. Rathod Ghamsingh, Shankarampet Thanda and Mandal, Medak District. .....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 issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the inaction of the respondents 1 to 5 in considering the candidature of the Petitioner for the Rajiv Gandhi University IIIT's (International Institute of Information Technologies) for the academic year 2008-2009 ignoring his claim being the student who stood ﬁrst in the entire Shankarampeta (A) Mandal of Medak District being illegal arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 5 to include the petitioner in the list of selected candidates for the Rajiv Gandhi University IIT's (International Institute of Information Technologies) for the academic year 2008-2009 and admit him in Rajiv Gandhi University IIT's (International Institute of Information Technologies) for the academic year 2008-2009 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.T.LAKSHMI NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION The Court made the following : O R D E R : 1. This Writ Petition has been ﬁled by B.Sashi Shekhara Sharma, a minor represented by father B.Chandra Shekhara Sharma assailing the action of R1 to R5 in not including his name in the selected list for admission into IIIT course for the academic year 2008-09 in Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge Technologies. He also assailed the action of the respondents in including the name of Rathod Ravinder-R6 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, 193 seats have been allotted to Medak District. 3. The petitioner studied SSC from Sri Saraswathi Sishu Mandir High School, at Shankarampet village of Shankarampet Mandal, Medak District and he secured 506 marks out of 600. According to him he is the top student in Shankarampet Mandal. For better understanding of the grievance of the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to refer paras 7 to 9 of the writ affidavit, which read as under: “ 7. I submit that my son the petitioner herein being the student stood ﬁrst in the entire mandal of Shankarampet he ought to have been given the call letter for counseling by the respondent No.3. However, the 6th respondent who is not a student occupying the ﬁrst place in the mandal and who secured less marks than that of the petitioner with a total number of marks of 506 is given the call letter ignoring the petitioner’s candidature, which is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The marks memo of the 6th respondent is ﬁled as material paper. The Annexure III is the comparative analysis of the proximate students who were given call letters ignoring the candidature of the petitioner those students mentioned in the Annexure III were given call letters inspite of the fact that they got far less number of total marks than that of the total marks of the petitioner. The annexure III may be red as part and parcel of this affidavit. 8. I submit that the District Collector, the R4 herein announced that 233 students have been selected for admission from the Medak District. The said list is available in the website. The same was down loaded by me and ﬁled herewith as annexure IV, which may be read as part and parcel of this aﬃdavit. This list announced by the District Collector, the respondent No.4 herein reveals that the students who do not belong to any school and who do not belong to the village of Shankarampet and who appeared as private students are also included in the list. I submit that the roll numbers of the regular students starts with the digit of 8 or 9 whereas the private students roll number starts with the digit of 1 like 1684 etc. The action of the respondent in considering the private students ignoring the candidature of the petitioner who stood ﬁrst in the Mandal is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 9. I submit that I went around the schools and gathered the information from all the six high schools of Shankarampet Mandal and found that the students who got less marks than that of the petitioner and who are not eligible when compared to the marks obtained by the petitioner but were selected. The same is ﬁled as annexure V which may read as part and parcel of this aﬃdavit. The action of the respondents in selecting those students who got less marks than that of the petitioner and who are not eligible when compared to the marks obtained by the petitioner but were selected is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.” 4. Rule nisi came to be issued on 27.6.2008. The respondents entered appearance and ﬁled their common counter aﬃdavit and additional counter aﬃdavit. 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 State wide 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. 5. 3rd respondent also ﬁled additional counter aﬃdavit. It is stated in the additional counter aﬃdavit that the petitioner is the top student in only two subjects with grade points score of 20 and whereas Kalvameedi Goutham Goud is the top student in three subjects with grade points score of 18. It is further stated that R6 studied in Zilla Parishath High School, Shankarampet Mandal and secured A+ in four subjects with 22 grade points. In Shankarampet Mandal, Udutha Anand and M.Maheshwar got selected under OC category. U.Anand scored A+ in six subjects with grade points score of 24 and M.Maheshwar secured A+ in ﬁve subjects with grade points score of 23. Both the students got A+ in more number of subjects and so also grade points score when compared to the petitioner. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for I.T. appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the top student in Sri Saraswathi Sishu Mandir High School in Sankarampet Mandal and therefore he is entitled to inclusion of his name in the selected list of IIIT course for the academic year 2008-09 of 3rd respondent-University. He also submits that selecting less meritorious students for admission into IIIT is arbitrary, illegal and opposed to the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He took me to the memorandum of marks of the petitioner issued by Board of Secondary Education. 8. Learned Government Pleader for I.T. submits that the petitioner is not the top student in the school. He placed on record the list of students in the school and grade points scored by them. A copy of the list of students in the school and grade points scored by them has been placed on record. 9. 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. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner tries to challenge the admission procedure on the ground that it is contrary. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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.” 13. 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.” 14. 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.” 15. 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. 16. It is apparent from the list of the students of Sri Saraswathi Sishu mandir High School placed on record by the learned Government Pleader for Information Technology appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 that one Kalvameedi Goutham Goud secured A+ in three subjects and whereas the petitioner secured A+ in only two subjects. As per the admission procedure a candidate who secured A+ in more number of subjects is to be treated as the top student in that school. The list placed on record disproves the contention of the petitioner that he is the top student in that school. Once he is eliminated at the school level, there is no question of his competing at Mandal level. 17. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. 13th November, 2008. (B.Seshasayana Reddy,J) tnb ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS} THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.13535 OF 2008 13T H NOVEMBER 2008. [1] (2001) 3 SCC 635 [2] (2006) 10 SCC 337 [3] (2006) 10 SCC 66