THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.NO.465 OF 2008 BETWEEN: Reemaan College of Education, Sanga Reddy, Medak District, rep. By its Correspondent & Secretary Khaja Quayum Anwar ..Petitioner Vs. Government of A.P. rep. By its Secretary, School Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and three others. ..Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.NO.465 OF 2008 ORAL ORDER The petitioner is a college of education and a recognized Muslim minority institution. In terms of the orders in G.O.Ms.No.92, Education Department dated.16- 11-2006 [where under statutory rules have been issued known as A.P. Colleges of Education (Regulation of Admissions into B.Ed Co urse through Common Entrance Test) Rules,2006 (for short “the Rules”)], 80% of the seats in the petitioner-college of education are to be filled by candidates allotted to the Ed.Cet Convener-AC SW-II while 20% of the seats are to be filled up according to the discretion of the management. It is the admitted position that in the 20% management quota only six Social Studies methodology seats are available as per the methodology discipline mandated by Rule.5(ii) and (iii) of the Rules. Admittedly also during the academic year 2006-07 the petitioner-College without any justification whatsoever and in gross defiance of the methodology discipline mandated by the Rules had admitted seven students in excess of the students permitted to be admitted under the management quota, into the Social methodology. Consequently the 3rd respondent by the order impugned dated.09-07-2007 deleted the names of the seven students admitted in excess in the Social studies methodology and communicated the list of the 13 admitted/approved candidates to the petitioner-College. Aggrieved thereby, the writ petition is filed. Rule.5(ii) of the Rules enjoins that percentage of candidates to be admitted in each methodology(subject) in any University, Government/Private institutions should not exceed the limit prescribed by the Government from time to time and that the percentage of admissions into the four methodologies should be as specified therein. For the Social studies methodology the limit prescribed is 30%. Sub-rule.iii of Rule.5 mandates that the methodology should be strictly followed as prescribed in sub-Rule.ii for all the seats allotted either by the Convener-Ed.Cet/Ed.Cet-AC or to be filled by the managements under the category-B seats i.e., management quota. A large number of private minority educational institutions appear to have wantonly violated the methodology discipline and with scant regard for the Rules. Initially the State wanted to remedy the situation and with a view to benefit the private managements at the cost of the statutory discipline, issued a series of executive instructions, which in any event could not have overridden the Statutory rules. Later by the order in G.O.Ms.No.87, Education(SE-TRG) Department, dated.26-10-2007, in purported exercise of powers conferred by Sections.3 and 15 of the A.P. Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act,1983 amendments to the Rules were issued. Inter alia, insofar as Sub-rule.iii of Rule.5 of the Rules is concerned the words “ or filled by the Management under category-B seats” was omitted. As a consequence of the amendments in G.O.Ms.No.87 dated.26-10-2007 which clearly and facially too is prospective w.e.f 26-10-2007 i.e., the date of issue of G.O.Ms.No.87, in respect of seats filled by the management under Category-B, it does not appear necessary to follow “strictly” the methodology wise percentages enjoined in Rule.5(ii) of the Rules, while University, Government and Private Institutions are nevertheless enjoined not to exceed the limit(in sub-Rule.ii). Sub-Rule.iii is amended and therefore the private managements need not strictly follow the percentage wise methodology discipline insofar as management seats is concerned. Neither the Rule as now amended clarifies the position nor the learned counsel for the petitioner, nor the learned Government Pleader for School Education point out the distinction between the following a rule and “strictly” following a rule at all. On a true, fair and grammatical construction of the language on established principles of lexicographic explication, this Court is of the view that every rule requires to be and verbatim. Be that as it may. Even after the amendments in G.O.Ms.No.87, dated.26-10-2007 sub-Rule.ii of Rule.5 remains unaltered and this sub-rule clearly and categorically enjoins private institutions not to exceed the limit prescribed by the University or Government from time to time and clearly enjoins that the percentage of admissions into the social studies methodology is 30%. Merely since in view of the amendments in G.O.Ms.No.87 the methodology wise percentages need not now be “strictly” followed insofar as management quota seats are concerned, it does not logically follow that the petitioner-management may willy-nilly subvert the mandate of sub-rule.ii of Rule.5 which enjoins the percentage of admissions for social studies methodology to be 30%. Clearly and admittedly seven students as spelt out in the impugned order have been admitted by the petitioner-management in excess of the 30% limit enjoined, in the social studies methodology. These admissions are forbidden and could not have been recognized by any State authority/actor. On the aforesaid view of the matter and in the light of the interpretation of the provisions of the Rules, the order impugned suffers from no infirmity warranting interference under Article.226 of the Constitution. There are no merits in the writ petition either. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs. _________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 21st JANUARY, 2008 Note: Issue cc As soon as Possible (B/o) *TSNR/PVSN