IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWELTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 16435 of 2009 Between: Ch.N.V.Prakasa Rao S/o.Late Ch.Venkata Ramana, R/o.Plot No.20, Madhurapuri colony Almasguda, Saroornagar Mandal, Herabad-500058 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Principal Secretary to Govt Dept of Higher Education Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad 2 The Secretary, Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh, High Court Buildings,Hyderabad 3 The Convenor, LAWCET-2009, Sri Venkateswara University Tirupati, chittoor 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 an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned clauses (a) and (b) of Rule 3 of Section 3 and 15 of AP Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 dated 18.3.2009 issued by the 3rd respondent pursuant to the G.O.Ms.No. 31 and 32 dated 18.3.2009 as illegal, arbitrary, unfaith and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the said impugned G.Os and grant such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.GANESH BHUJANGA RAO VADDURI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION The Court made the following : ORDER ::: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHAN RAO WRIT PETITION No.16435 of 2009 ORDER : ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed, J) This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a appropriate writ, more particularly, one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the amended clauses (a) and (b) of Rule 3 of Section 3 and 15 of the AP Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983, vide GO Ms. No.31, dated 18-3-2009 issued by the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and consequently set aside the said impugned GO. 2 . The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the admission notification issued by the 3rd respondent for admission into LLB/BL courses for the year 2009-10, the petitioner appeared for the written examination and got through the examination with a rank of 3675, but the 3rd respondent- Convener, LAWCET-2009, rejected the case of the petitioner for admission in view of the amendment made to the said Rule by the impugned GO. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for 1st respondent and the learned counsel respondents 2 and 3. 4. By virtue of the impugned amended rule, the percentage of marks in the aggregate to be eligible for admission into for 3 years or 5 years LLB/BL courses was substituted from “40% and 39.5%” to that of “ 45% and 44.5% respectively”. Excellence in higher education is always insisted upon by a series of decisions of the Apex Court and also this Court. If higher percentage of marks have been prescribed, there is an object which is sought to be achieved. Higher percentage marks prescribed would only add to the excellence in the matter of education. In the instant case, the variation of marks is realistic, attainable and within the reach of the candidates. In an identical case, the Apex Court in STATE OF TAMIL NADU vs. SV BRATHEEP1 at para 9 held thus: “9………..Therefore, what is to be seen in the present case is whether the prescription of the standards made by the State Government is in any way adverse to, or lower than, the standards fixed by the AICTE, It is no doubt true that the AICTE prescribed two modes of admission - One is merely dependent on the qualifying examination and the other dependent upon the marks obtained at the Common Entrance Test. The appellant in the present case prescribed the qualification of having secured certain percentage of marks in the related subjects which is higher than the minimum in the qualifying examination in order to be eligible for admission. If higher minimum is prescribed by the State Government than what had been prescribed by the AICTE, can it be said that it is in any manner adverse to the standards fixed by the AICTE or reduces the standard fixed by it? In our opinion, it does not. On the other hand, if we proceed on the basis that the norms fixed by the AICTE would allow admission only on the basis of the marks obtained in the qualifying examination the additional test made applicable is the common entrance test by the State Government. If we proceed to take the standard fixed by the AICTE to be the common entrance test then the prescription made by the State Government of having obtained certain marks higher than the minimum in the qualifying examination in order to be eligible to participate in the common entrance test is in addition to the common entrance test. In either event, the streams proposed by the AICTE are not belittled in any manner. The manner in which the High Court has proceeded is that what has been prescribed by the AICTE is inexorable and that that minimum alone should be taken into consideration and no other standard could be fixed even the higher as stated by this Court in Dr. Preeti Srivastava's case. It is no doubt true as noticed by this Court in Adhiyaman's case that there may be situations when a large number of seats may fall vacant on account of the higher standards fixed. The standards fixed should always be realistic which are attainable and are within the reach of the candidates. It cannot be said that the prescriptions by the State Government in addition to those of AICTE in the present case are such which are not attainable or which are not within the reach of the candidates who seek admission for engineering colleges. It is not very high percentage of marks that has been prescribed as minimum of 60% downwards, but definitely higher than the mere pass marks. Excellence in higher education is always insisted upon by series of decisions of this Court including Dr. Preeti Srivastava's case. If higher minimum marks have been prescribed, it would certainly add to the excellence in the matter of admission of the students in higher education.” 5. In this view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J ________________________ Nooty Ramamohana Rao,J Dated : 12-8-2009 Nrg.