THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT APPEAL No.1022 of 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT:(per THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, and the learned Advocate General, appearing for the respondent-State. 2. The implead party-petitioner is the appellant herein. 3. This Writ Appeal is directed against the interim order, dated 23.07.2009, granted by a learned single Judge of this Court, in W.P.M.P.No.19344 of 2009 in W.P.No.14744 of 2009, filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to direct the respondents therein to conduct counseling for admission into MBBS/BDS courses for the year 2009-2010, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.136 HM&FW(E-1) Department, dated 30.04.2007, by suspending the operation of G.O.Ms.No.144 Health Medical and Family Welfare (E1) Department, dated 15.07.2009, insofar as it reduced the percentage of seats to Medical Colleges in the B- Category to the Unaided non-minority private institutions, pending disposal of the said writ petition. 4. The facts, in brief, shorn of, all the material, which is not relevant, are as under: For the purpose of admissions into various Professional Colleges like MBBS, BDS etc., a Common Entrance Test, which is popularly known as ‘EAMCET’ is being conducted every year. Similarly, the EAMCET-2009 also was conducted after publishing the same on 11.02.2009 and the entrance test was also held on 14.05.2009. The date of counseling was also informed as 10.07.2009. 5. Be that as it may, it is brought to the notice of this Court, by the learned counsel for the appellant, that, pursuant to the judgment, rendered by the apex Court, in P.A.INAMDAR vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA,[1] the consensual agreement has been adopted in making seat matrix for the competent authority seats/EAMCET ranking based management seats/Management seats in unaided non-minority Medical/Dental colleges in the State. As a consequence thereof, G.O.Ms.No.136 Health Medical and Family Welfare (E1) Department, dated 30.04.2007, had been issued wherein the classification of seats was made as under: “Category-A seats (50% of the sanctioned in take of the Seats) - “Competent Authority seats”:- The seats shall be filled through counseling by the Committee for admissions constituted by the competent Authority as per merit from the candidates who are qualified at the common entrance test, EAMCET held by the State for that year and following the rules of reservation. Category-B (20% of the sanctioned intake of the seats) – “EAMCET ranking based Management Seats”:- The seats shall be filled through counseling by the Committee for Admissions constituted by the Competent Authority as per merit from the candidates who are qualified at the common entrance test, EAMCET held by the State for that year and following the rules of reservation as agreed to by the A.P. Private Medical and Dental Colleges Managements Association, Hyderabad. Category – C (30% of the sanctioned intake of the Seats) – “Management Seats”:- The seats shall be filled by the Managements of individual Colleges or Committee of Managements in the order of merit based on the applications received following a transparent procedure as specified in these rules”. 6. Since then, the Educational Institutions have been following the same format. 7. From the above, what appears is perhaps in order to promote and prefer efficiency, 50% of the seats have been earmarked by the Committee for admissions, which is headed by the competent authority i.e., the Vice-Chancellor of NTR University of Health Sciences, for admissions. 8. Coming to category-B, 20% of the seats have been allocated for EAMCET ranking based management seats. Obviously, in this category, the seats of the Managements also would be reckoned but predominantly, following the ranking in EAMCET. 9. Coming to category-C, 30% of the sanctioned intake of seats was classified as “Management seats”. 10. In this category, there is no specification as regards the requirement on the part of the Institution or University, as the case may be. All the seats shall be filled by the respective Managements in order of merit, based on applications received, following the transparent procedure. 11. Therefore, from the above, the role of the Managements starts at Category-B partially and reins of admission would be under the total control of the respective managements under Category-C. 12. There was no controversy on this subject, any time before. Consequently, the EAMCET-2009 also was convened, rankings also were furnished to the successful candidates and the dates of counseling was also intimated by a notice on 10-07-2009. 13. It is to be remembered here that when rankings have been assigned and informed to the students, the right of the students would accrue to have an admission as per the ranking in EAMCET. This is broadly the general principle. 14. Therefore, notification of dates of counseling as 10.07.2009 gains much significance. The students would get mentally and physically prepared for the counseling pursuant to that notice. Therefore, virtually, we may call it as the crucial date, at least, insofar as, the students and the accrued right of the students, though not crystallized, is not desirable to be disturbed. 15. While so, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued the impugned G.O.Ms.No.144, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (E1) Department, dated 15.07.2009, whereby there is a deviation insofar as category-C, as was originally postulated in G.O.Ms.No.136, dated 30/04/2007. As a consequence thereof, the quota of 50% insofar as category-A is not disturbed, the quota under category-B, which is EAMCET based management quota, was slashed to 10% to be filled up by the Competent authority and the remaining 10% EAMCET based quota had been added to category-C and as a result the quota of 30%, as prescribed under Category-C, was bulged to 40%. 16. In other words, the managements have absolute control over 40% of the admissions and the competent authority has only 50% and 10% partially, insofar as admissions. 17. While so, the G.O.Ms.No.144 was issued on 15.07.2009, particularly when 19th was the date indicated, well before hand, for the purpose of displaying the available seats. This actually meant for the students where they are likely to stand and in order to make further preparations. 18. From the above, it is obvious that the EAMCET examination was convened, results were declared, students were informed their respective rankings and the date of counseling was also intimated to them, by way of a notification, dated 10.07.2009, and by way of subsequent notification, dated 15.07.2009, displaying of seats also was envisaged. 19. When so much of water and the procedure that had flown already, it is not now proper for the appellant to ask for reversion of the whole situation to the earlier procedure. In a way, it may also accounts to attracting the principle of estoppel. 20. It is to be noticed that the learned single Judge pointed out with, with which we are in agreement, that there is prima facie case in favour of the respondent No.1 and other respondents consequently. 21. It is to be further noticed that this situation of a little complexity, which is just at the threshold of the admission process, cannot be tested from various angles and on all contentious issues both on law and facts. 22. However, we are of the considered view that the learned single Judge was right in observing that the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.144, dated 15.07.2009, is prima facie not germane to the interest of not only the respondent No.1 but also similarly situated individuals. Further, no useful purpose would be served even if we interfere with the impugned interim direction, granted by the learned single Judge. 23. Of course, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the students have no role to play in the Courts and further that the students have no right to question the policy of the Government. 24. No doubt, the said principle laid down by the apex Court is unexceptional, nevertheless if there is any arbitrariness or violation of any other approved principles of law, the same can be ventilated before the Court. 25. At this stage, the learned Advocate General, appearing for the State, informed this Court that the interim direction, dated 23.07.2009, granted by the learned single Judge, was directed to be implemented in a right spirit. As a consequence thereof, we were also informed that all the seats in MBBS and BDS, under category-B, have been filled. In fact, this is the area where the whole controversy rests. 26. In view of the said information, furnished by the learned Advocate General, added to our opinion already expressed, we are in total agreement with the said interim direction, granted by the learned single Judge. 27. For the foregoing, the Writ Appeal is devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 28. However, it is made clear that we feel it desirable to intimate to all those selected students that their admission is subject to the outcome of the writ petition. 29. With the above observations, the Writ Appeal is dismissed, at the stage of admission. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA _________________________ 28th JULY 2009 JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO KTL/KRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT APPEAL (SR).No.80584 of 2009 (Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA) 28TH JULY 2009 [1] AIR 2005 SC 3226