L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. In this writ petition, the petitioners seek the relief of declaration that (1) the procedure prescribed in G.O. Ms. No.47, Social Welfare Department, dated 31-5-2000 is not applicable to the selection of candidates for admission against seats in Post-Graduate Medical Courses reserved for Scheduled Castes; (2) admissions to the Post-Graduate Medical Courses are to be made on the basis of merit subject to rule of reservation as provided for in the rules contained in G.O.Ms.No.260 dated 10-7-1997; and (3) Notification dated 29-10-2001 issued by the 1st respondent - University suspending the process of selection of candidates for admission into Post-Graduate Medical Courses against Scheduled Caste seats is illegal and arbitrary.
2. Broadly stated, the averments in the affidavit filed by the petitioners are that, the petitioners who belong to Scheduled Caste community have passed MBBS., course in different years; and they appeared for the entrance examination held by the 1st respondent-University for the purpose of selection of candidates for admission into Post-Graduate Medical Courses for the current academic year. Petitioners 1 to 7 secured ranks 525, 553, 579, 681, 239, 369 and 310 respectively. According to them, the selection as well as admission of candidates against seats reserved for SC category has been conducted up to rank 900. However, the 1st respondent issued notification dated 29-10-2001 suspending the selection process. It is alleged that the respondents are now proposing to apply the procedure and guidelines contained in G.O. Ms. No.47, Social Welfare Department dated 31-5-2000 for the purpose of selectionof SC candidates for admission into Post-Graduate Medical Courses. The petitioners state that the matter of admission into Post-Graduate Medical Courses is governed by the provisions of A.P. Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the '1983 Act') and the rules framed by the Government in G.O. Ms. No.260 called as A.P. Medical Colleges (Admission into Post-Graduate Medical Courses) Rules, 1997 - hereinafter referred to as 'Admission Rules'. The petitioners contend that Rule 3(2) of the Admission Rules provides for separate reservations for degree and diploma courses, Rule 9 contemplates preparation of merit list as per the marks obtained by the candidates in the entrance examination and Rule 10 mandates the selection within a particular category to be only on the basis of merit. The revised procedure for selection post by G.O. Ms. No.47, dated 31-5-2000, which provides for roster points, cannot be made applicable for admissions into educational institutions.
3. The 1st respondent-University filed counter-affidavit narrating the circumstances under which it had to suspend the admissions at a particular stage. It has also justified the application of the procedure stipulated under G.O. Ms. No.47 dated 31-5-2000, which in turn was issued under the A.P. Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservation) Act, 2000.
4. Madiga Porata Reservation Samithi (MPRS) filed WPMP No.220 of 2002 for getting itself impleaded in the writ petition. Another application for impleading, being WPMP No.31750 of 2001 was filed by one Dr. C.R. Murali Govardhan. Both the implead petitioners opposed the contentions of the writ petitioners and supported the stand and steps taken by the State Government and the University. These petitions were ordered.
5. Sri G. Vidyasagar, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the procedure for admission into Post-Graduate Medical Courses prescribed under 1983 Act as well as Admission Rules and the concept of roster which is prevalent in case of appointments, cannot be made applicable for admissions. It is his further contention that by virtue of Section 12, 1983 Act had overriding effects on all other laws. He states that the Admission Rules which are framed under 1983 Act contain a detailed procedure for the purpose of selection of candidates including those of SC category and they provided for merit to be the criterion for selection among the candidates belonging to the same category and as long as the provisions of the 1983 Act and the Admission Rules remain, a different procedure cannot be resorted to on the basis of the A.P. Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservation) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Reservations Act' and the Rules made thereunder viz., The Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservation) Rules issued under G.O. Ms. No.47, Social Welfare, dated 31-5-2000 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Reservation Rules').
6. The contentions of the learned Government Pleader for Higher Education, the Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent University and the learned Counsel appearing for the impleading parties are that the 1983 Act prescribes the broad principles to be adopted for admission into education institutions and so far as the reservations in favour of various categories are concerned, the said Act is not only silent, but also leaves the matter to the decision of the Government to be taken from time to time, as is evident from the language of Section 3 of that Act. Their further contention is that the very purpose of and the circumstances under which the Reservations Act came to be enacted is to protect the interest of various specialcategories within the category of Scheduled Castes and once the category of Scheduled Castes is divided into various sub-categories through a statute for the express purpose of public employment and educational institutions, the same cannot be thwarted with reference to some provisions which have no application. As far as the concept of roster in admissions is concerned, they submit that the same ensures objective way of filling of the seats without leaving any scope for exercise of discretion in the matter and there is nothing in law, which prohibits or prescribes the said course of action.
7. Admissions into Educational Institutions in the State of Andhra Pradesh are regulated by 1983 Act and the Admission Rules. The procedure and scheme of admissions came to be modified as regards certain aspects in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, : [1993]1SCR594 . The purpose underlying the enactment of Act 5 of 1983 was to prohibit capitation fee. While doing so, it had prescribed the procedure to be followed while making admissions into educational institutions. In exercise of the power under the 1983 Act, the Government framed rules for different courses from time to time. In certain cases, rules regarding admission for the same courses had to be revised amending the procedures. In this writ petition, we are concerned with the admission into the Post-Graduate Medical Courses. As stated above, the Government issued the Admission Rules through G.O. Ms. No.260 dated 10-7-1998.
8. Section 3 of 1983 Act contemplates admissions to be made in the Medical and Engineering Colleges on the basis of the ranking assigned in the common entrance test. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 speaks of reservation of seats in favour of the members belonging to Scheduled Castes (SC),Scheduled Tribes (ST) and Backward Classes (BC). It also recognised the reservations to be provided for in the A.P. Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission) Order, 1974. Section 3 reads as under:
'Section 3, Regulation of admission into educational institutions:--(1) Subject to such rules as may be made in this behalf, admission into educational institutions shall be made either on the basis of the marks obtained in the qualifying examination or on the basis of the ranking assigned in the entrance test conducted by such authority and in such manner as may be prescribed:
Provided that admission into Medical and Engineering Colleges shall be made only on the basis of the ranking assigned in the common entrance test conducted as aforesaid.
(2) The admission into educational institutions under Sub-section (1) shall be subject to such rules as may be made by the Government in regard to reservation of seats to the members belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes and other categories of students as may be notified by the Government in this behalf and the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission) Order, 1974.'
So far as Admission Rules are concerned, they contain the procedural aspects to be followed in giving effect to the provisions of 1983 Act.
9. In the State of Andhra Pradesh, 15% of the seats in educational institutions are reserved in favour of SC candidates. Till recently, the SC category used to be treated as a Unit and admissions into the seats meant for that category used to be on the basis of merit among the candidates belonging to that category. Same used to be the situation as regards reservations in the public employment. The A.P. State Legislature enacted the Reservations Act whereunder various castes within thecategory of Scheduled Castes were classified into four categories, viz., 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D'. Section 3 of Reservations Act enlisted various castes comprising the category and the reservations made for them, which are as under:--
SC 'A' .. 1%SC 'B' .. 7%SC 'C' .. 6%SC 'D' .. 1%
The validity of the Reservations Act has been challenged in this Court. A larger Bench of this Court, comprising of five Judges, upheld the validity of the Act, through its judgment in Mallela Venkata Rao v. State of A.P., : 2000(6)ALD555 (FB).
10. The Government, in exercise of its power under Section 7 of Reservations Act, framed the Reservation Rules. In these rules, the details of reservations among the various categories in the 'C' community are provided for. Rule 3 of these Rules contemplated the reservation of seats both as regards public employment or admissions into educational institutions in respect of various special categories on the basis of the identified points in the 100 Points Roster.
11. Reverting to the facts of the case, it may be noted that all the petitioners belong to SC 'C' category. Their complaint is that their admission into Post-Graduate Medical Courses for the current academic year have been effected to a substantial extent in accordance with the Admission Rules and abruptly the same was stopped and steps are being taken to apply the Reservation Rules in the matter of admissions.
12. The principal questions that fall for consideration in this writ petition are as to:
(1) Whether 1983 Act and the Admission Rules are the sole repositories of procedure for admission into the Post-Graduate Medical Courses including the stipulation as to reservations; and
(2) Whether the application of roster system in the matter of admissions is fraught with illegality.
13. The object underlying 1983 Act is evident from Section 3 of the said Act, which is extracted supra. The remaining provisions of the Act supplement these objects. It is evident from a reading of the section that the Act provides for admission into Medical and Engineering Colleges on the basis of ranking assigned in the Common Entrance Test. The remaining provisions of the Act as well as the provisions contained in the Admission Rules supply the details as to the method of selection of candidates and the steps to be taken at various stages in the admissions. There is no other Act or rules touching on the aspects as regards the courses mentioned in the section. To that extent, it can safely be concluded that the provisions of 1983 Act and the Admission Rules on these aspects are exclusive. However, we are not concerned with that aspect in this writ petition.
14. The controversy in this writ petition is about the implementation of reservations in favour of SC candidates. On this aspect, the relevant provision in the 1983 Act is Sub-section (2) of Section 3. This provision of the Act by itself does not deal with the question of reservation. It is dependent on the decision of the Government on this aspect. This Act, by itself, does not provide for the categories or quantum of reservations. The same is evident from the section itself when it says the admissions contemplated under the Act are subject to Rules of Reservations in favour of various categories including Scheduled Castes 'as may be notified by theGovernment in this behalf' The provisions of the 1983 Act and the Admission Rules have no active role to play in the matter of reservations. On the other hand, they give way to the decision of the Government as may be notified by it from time to time in this behalf. The said Act and rules give way to the decision of the Government in this behalf. Therefore, it may safely be summed up that while the Act is declaratory in nature as to the entire procedure to be followed in admission into the course named therein, it is cognitive in nature as regards the question of reservations in favour of various categories.
15. Before the Reservations Act came to be enacted, the matter of reservation in favour of SC used to be dealt with under various orders of the Government. Under this Act, while the over all percentage of reservation in favour of SC candidates in the matter of public employment and admission into educational institutions continues to be 15%, categorisation has been effected within the Scheduled Castes, the details of which have been referred to supra. The validity of the Reservations Act has been upheld. The petitioners do not canvass anything as to the validity of any of the provisions of the Act. The Reservation Rules have been framed in exercise of the power under Section 7 of the Reservations Act. The Reservation rules are, in a way, the vehicle for implementation of the provisions of the Act. It is not the case of the petitioners that the rules are in any way ultra vires the provisions of the Act. Once the rules are framed with a view to advance the object underlying and for implementation of the provisions of the Act, no exception can be taken to the same.
16. The grievance of the writ petitioners is that under Rules 9 and 10 of the Admission Rules provided for preparation of merit list and selections to be made based upon themarks obtained by the candidates within each category; and application of the provisions contained in the Reservation Rules negative the concept of merit contemplated under the Admission Rules. They intend to accord place of priority to the provisions of the 1983 Act and the Admission Rules on the basis of the overriding effect assigned to this Act under Section 12 of the same.
17. Preparation of merit list and selection on the basis of merit within the same category as contemplated under the Admission Rules is always subject to Rules of Reservation. Not only Section 3(2) of 1983 Act, but also Rule 3(2) (iv) makes this aspect very clear. This provision is as under-
'Number of seats reserved for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, or Backward Class and in-service candidates in the Degree or Diploma Courses and the total seats available in each group shall be notified by the University of Health Sciences taking into consideration the statutory rule of reservation framed by Government of Andhra Pradesh from time to time.'
18. As stated earlier, the 1983 Act as well as the Admission Rules leaves the quantum and other related matters of reservations to be decided by the Government. The provisions of the said Act and rules are very clear and unambiguous on this aspect. If at all anything, the Reservations Act and the rules constitute 'the decision of the Government on the matter of reservations in favour of the Scheduled Castes candidates'. Preparation of merit list and other procedure contemplated under Rules 9, 10, etc., are in no way in conflict with the quantum and classification of reservations provided for under the Reservations Act and the rules. The question of giving overriding effect to the provisions of the 1983 Act on the basis of Section 12 of that Act would arise if onlythere is a conflict between the provisions of the same on one hand and the another on the other on the subject-matter. The examination of the provisions of the two Acts as indicated above would leave one in no doubt that there is no overlapping in the field of operation. The 1983 Act leaves the matter of reservation to be dealt by the Government and to that extent it- leaves the space open. If at all anything, the Reservations Act provides the material in the space left by the 1983 Act. There are no provisions in the two Acts, which are in conflict. On the other hand, they supplement each other. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted.
19. Another limb of the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this regard is that on account of implementation of the procedure provided for under the Reservations Act and the rules, the merit among the SC candidates is ignored. His argument is that the petitioners, who occupied almost top positions in the merit list of SCs, are relegated to the seats of less importance; whereas those with less merit in that list are offered covenant seats. This submission should not detain us for long. By its very nature, reservations always dent into the operation of the merit. If reservations in favour of SCs and BCs, or for that matter any other category, has to operate only as an exception to the operation of normal rule of merit, there is no way that the further categorisation within SCs can operate.
20. Now the contention as regards the implementation of roster remains to be dealt with. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners in this regard is that roster is a phenomena prevailing in the matter of appointments and it cannot be operated in the matter of admissions. He states that the 100 point roster cannot be operated where the available seats areless than 100. It is also submitted that though there is further classification among BCs, the principle of roster is not maintained and implementation of the same as regards SCs alone amounts to discrimination.
21. We gave our anxious consideration to find out as to whether there is any enacted or decided case law, which supports the contention of the petitioner that the principle of roaster is in the exclusive domain of employment. Our attention was not invited to any such law. Though introduction of the system of roster in the matter of admissions appears to be new, there does not appear to be anything objectionable in applying the same for the admissions. By I applying the principle of roster, seats in the specified position are identified for various categories. The seats so identified are liable to be filled up by the candidates belonging to the category for which it is meant. In a way, it ensures the most objective method of working of reservations. Each category is not only ensured of its quota, but also the fair distribution of the seats in various courses. Except the general allegation, it is not demonstrated as to how it had worked out to the detriment of any category.
22. It is not necessary that there should be a minimum of 100 seats to operate the 100 point roster. Necessary places are assigned to each group in the roster. If the number of seats is less than 100, the representation of each group is in no way affected since the distribution of the groups throughout the roster is proportionate and equitable.
23. The fact that the roster system is not implemented in case of BCs does not constitute a ground to prevent the application of the same in the case of SCs. Firstly, both the categories are separate and, as such, does not constitute discrimination.Secondly, if a particular measure or method adopted by the Government does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity, the fact that the said measure or method is not applied with regard to another similar situation does not entitle the Court to interdict the State from implementing the same. Therefore, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners on this plea.
24. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are not persuaded to grant any relief prayed for by the petitioners. Hence, we dismiss the writ petition. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.