ORDER
1. The issue to be decided being common in all these three writ petitions, they can be disposed of by a common order.
2. The students 11 in number, who passed Diploma in Chemical Engineering in (Petro Chemicals) and Plastics and Polymers at the Government Institute of Post Diploma Course in Engineering and Technologies (GETCET) filed these three writ petitions questioning the action of the 2nd respondent-Convener, ECET(FDH) 1999-2000 JNTU, in the College of Engineering, Hyderabad, in not considering their case for admission into the Chemical Engineering Course, by treating the institution in which they haveprosecuted their studies as a Statewide institution.
3. After filing of the writ petitions, it seems two petitioners secured payment seat in private colleges and they are prosecuting their studies in the Engineering Colleges. Hence the issue that has been cropped up in these writ petitions can be adjudicated with reference to the other petitioners.
4. The President of India, in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Clause 1 of Article 371-D of the Constitution of India issued the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions) Order, 1974 for providing equitable opportunities and facilities for the people belonging to different parts of the State in the matter of admissions to the Educational Institutions, which is herein after referred to as Six Point Formulae in GSR No.299E, dated 1-7-1974. Under paragraph 3 of the Presidential Order, the local areas were formed for the purpose of admission into the Educational Institutions. In paragraph 4, a local candidate in relation to the local area was specified. Under paragraph 4(1)(a), a student who has studied for four consecutive academic years, ending with the academic year in which he appeared in the relevant qualifying examination or a student who has resided in a local area for a period of not less than 4 years immediately preceding the commencement of the relevant qualifying examination, are regarded as local candidates. Paragraph 4(2) deals with the students who cannot be regarded as local candidates. But the candidate who has studied for not less than seven consecutive academic years, with reference to the qualifying examination in the State, shall be treated as a local candidate on the basis of his maximum stay in a particular local area. II) If the student studies in two or more local areas, where the stay is equal, the local area where he studied last, shall be the local area for him.(b) The students who do not fall under clause (a) of paragraph 4(2), but who resided in the State for a period of 7 years, be regarded as a local candidate in the area where he resided for the maximum period out of 7 years. If the stay in two or more local areas is equal, the local area in which he resided last shall be the local area for that student. But an exception was made in paragraph 6 of this formulae that the students who prosecuted their studies in the Statewide Institutions shall be regarded as local candidates for the local area to which he belong to without reference to their period of study in the Statewide Educational Institutions and under this paragraph, admissions to the Statewide Educational Institutions shall be made in the ratio of 42:36:22 from Andhra, Osmania and Venkateswara University Regions. From the above back drop, the present cases have to be considered.
5. During the financial year 1994-1995, the State Empowered Committee proposed several new schemes to generate more employment opportunities keeping the needs of the developing society under Technical Education Project and on the basis of its recommendation, the Government issued G.O. Ms. No.80 (Education-CET), dated 18-3-1995, whereunder several new disciplines were started in Polytechnics these i.e., Diploma in Chemical Engineering and Petro Chemicals, Plastics and Polymers were started at the Government Institute of Diploma Courses in Engineering and Technology (GIUTET). As per the said GO, the course is a State-wide course for a period of 3 1/2 years. Thereafter, the Commissioner i.e., the 1st respondent issued separate notification for each of the regions specifying the number of seats to be filled up in the course from each region by treating it as a Statewide course and the said course is being imparted at Visakhapatnam only which is a Government Centre.
6. It is not in dispute that all the petitioners belonging to different regions secured admissions in these disciplines and prosecuted their studies at Visakhapatnam. Having passed the Diploma Examination in distinction, they appeared for ECET examination, seeking admission into the Engineering Course wherein 5% of the seats were reserved exclusively for the Diploma Holders. In this Common Entrance Test also, they got high ranks but the Convener refused to consider their claims for admission on the basis of the local area to which they belong to and on the ground that they studied in Zone 1 i.e., Andhra Area and their cases can be considered as local candidates for Zone I and for other zones as non local candidates. It is an admitted case that about 71 seats in Chemical Engineering Course in various colleges in the State of Andhra Pradesh were reserved for the diploma holders and as per the notification, diploma holders in '7' disciplines including Petro Chemicals, Plastics and Polymers are eligible for admission into the Chemical Engineering Course. But on the sole ground that this institution was not included in the schedule to the Presidential order wherein the Statewide institutions were enumerated, the Convener refused to consider the cases of the petitioners as local candidates of the local area to which they belong. When the Convener tries to fill up the seats with the candidates Belonging to the other disciplines, the petitioners filled these writ petitions before this Honourable Court.
7. Initially a direction was given to the Convener to treat the petitioners who seek admission into the Engineering course on the basis of the ranks obtained by them as local candidates of the area where their parents are residing. Simultaneously a direction was given to the Commissioner to direct the Secretary for Higher Education to send a proposal to the Government of India to include these disciplines in the Presidential Order forthwith. It is worthto note that even before these orders were passed, the Commissioner, on a representation made by the students, directed the Convener not to make admissions to seats earmarked for Diploma Courses in Chemical Engineering. Having received the interim order of this Court, dated 30-9-1999, the Commissioner has reiterated the direction. Even then, the Convener has taken the stand that he is bound by the Presidential Order which is having a statutory flavour rather than complying with the executive instructions given by the Commissioner and tried to fill up the vacancies. While keeping the issue open, I have taken the view that a student who has migrated from one local area to the other, will not loose his residence and at any rate, his stay at the Educational Institution cannot be treated as a permanent residence and directed the Convener to consider the case of the petitioners for admission into the Engineering Courses. Aggrieved by the said order, the Convener carried the matter in appeal in WA Nos.I750, 1751 and 1762 of 1999 and those writ appeals were disposed of at the admission stage with the following direction.
'We direct that admissions of students into the course, if any, made by the colleges will be subject to result of the writ appeal and it is made clear that no equitable right will accrue to such students admitted into the course. We also direct that the colleges in which the students are admitted shall inform the students that their admission will be subject to the result of the writ appeal pending in this Court and they shall also obtain undertaking from the students to the affect that their admissions to the course will be subject to the result of the appeal. The appellant-Convener shall also inform the students accordingly.'.
8. Thereafter, the 1st respondent filed his counter wherein he categorically statedthat the institute wherein the petitioners studied was treated as a State-wide Institution and admissions were made in the ratio of 42:36:22 among Andhra University, Osmania University and Sri Venkateswara University. Having realised the mistake of not taking steps to include these courses in the schedule annexed to the Presidential Order, he immediately sent proposals to the Government in his letter No.H2/33121-99, dated 2-6-1999, to get these courses included in the schedule by the Central Government. Unfortunately, at the Secretariat level, there was much delay in forwarding the proposal to the Central Government and it is only at the persuasion of this Court, the Secretary ultimately sent proposals to the Central Government in Memo No.26656-TE-1/99, dated 27-10-2000. Thereafter this Court gave notice to the learned Central Government Standing Counsel who in turn having obtained instructions from his clients reported that they have not received any letter which is alleged to have been sent by the Government. Ultimately, this Court got a copy of the letter served on the learned Central Government Standing Counsel and this Court passed an order on 30-12-2000, by bringing the suffering of the students to the notice of the Central Government. The Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India was directed to pass orders within one week from that date and the Government of India promptly complied with the order and issued notification in SO 115(E) dated 9-2-2001 including the institute in the schedule treating the same is Statewide Institute.
9. Now from the above factual narration it is seen that the Government having started these two disciplines during the year 1994-1995 as Statewide Courses, have forgotten their duty to see that these courses are included in the schedule treating the institute as a Statewide Institute. In all fairness, I must say that when the mistake committed by the Government wasbrought to the notice of the Commissioner, he promptly reacted and has taken every possible step to save the students by giving a direction not to make any admissions. But the Convener has taken a stand that he is bound by the Presidential Order but not by the instructions of the Commissioner and went ahead with the admissions. Of course, the Division Bench of this Court while allowing the appeals filed against the order of this Court made it very clear that any admissions made shall be subject to the result of the writ petition and the Convener was directed to obtain an undertaking from the students that they will not raise equities in the event the writ petition is allowed.
10. Now, the dust has been settled and the institute is treated as a State-wide Institution. The question is how to mould the relief.
11. As usual, the learned Government Pleader in his inevitable style raised various contentions including the one that these courses were never started as State-wide courses and the orders issued by the Central Government are only prospective in nature. Hence no relief can be given to the petitioners. This Court summoned the file relating to GO No.B2/11/314/94, dated 21-7-1995. At page 465 of the file, it is made very clear that these courses are being started as State-wide courses and admissions are going to take place in the ratio of 42:36:22. Hence the contention raised by the Convener that it is not a Statewide course, has no legs to stand. When the main contention goes, all other contentions raised by him cannot stand. Hence all other contentions are rejected.
12. It is true that the Division Bench of this Court while disposing of the appeals observed that any admission of the students into the course made by the Convener will be subject to the result of the writ petition and no equitable right willaccrue to them in the event the writ petitions are being allowed. In fact, the Division Bench directed the Convener to obtain an undertaking from the students to the affect that their admissions into the course will be subject to the writ petition. But the fact remains that one academic year is over and at this stage, it is neither desirable to disturb the admissions of the students nor advantageous to the petitioners as they cannot be admitted in the second year course of that batch. Hence, I am not inclined to disturb the admissions made by the Convener pursuant to the orders of this Court in the writ appeal.
13. Coming to the relief to be granted to the petitioners who secured high ranks in the ECET examination for the academic year 2000-2001, as stated supra, they cannot be found fault in not treating the institute as a State-wide Institute. The Governmental authorities are expected to move in the matter and take further steps to get the institute included in the schedule appended to the Presidential Order having started the courses way back in 1994-95. Atleast had they moved in the matter with the swiftness the situation warranted, immediately after the petitioners brought the same to the notice of the Government to rectify the anomaly that has been created due to their inaction, the students would not have lost one valuable year of study. If the students did not bring the same to the notice of this Court and the Government, perhaps, the Government would have slept over like Wripwan Wrinkle forgetting its duty to its citizens. It is also not in dispute that all these petitioners have secured high ranks in the ECET examination and because of the inaction on the part of the Government and its agencies, they could not secure admissions during that academic year for no fault of him.
14. Now the learned Counsel appearing for the Convener submitted that the seatsearmarked for the Diploma courses in the Engineering courses for the academic year 2000-2001 were filled up and no vacancies are available to accommodate the petitioners even if a direction is given by this Court. Time and again, the Supreme Court in M. Sreedevi v. University of Medical Sciences, Andhra Pradesh and others, 2000 (7) Supreme 594 and C. Tulasi Priya v. A.P. State Council of Higher Education, 1998 (6) Supreme 184 and also in Shri Krishna v. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, : AIR1976SC376 , made it very clear that in the cause of furtherance of justice, this Court is empowered to save the citizens from the vagaries of the administration by giving suitable directions. The Courts are empowered to give suitable directions to minimize the injustice caused to the citizens for no fault of them.
15. In Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh v. Sanjay Gulati, 1983 SC 580, their Lordships of the Supreme Court having found fault with the procedure followed by the authorities concerned in making spot admissions obsefved as follows:
'Cases in which admissions granted to students in educational institutions are quashed raise a sensitive human issue. It is unquestionably true that the authorities who are charged with the duty of admitting students to educational institutions must act fairly and objectively. If admissions to these institutions are made on extraneous considerations and the authorities violate the norms set down by the rules and regulations, a sense of resentment and frustration is bound to be generated in the minds of those unfortunate students who are wrongly or purposefully left out'.
Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in (supra) directed the authorities to create additional seats to accommodate the eligible candidates after rejecting thecontention of the authorities concerned held in the following words:
'It is strange that in all such cases, the authorities who make admissions by ignoring the rules of admissions contend that the seats cannot correspondingly be increased, since the State Government cannot meet the additional expenditure which will be caused by increasing the number of seats or that the institution will not be able to cope up with the additional influx of students. An additional plea available in regard to Medical Colleges is that the Indian Medical Council will not sanction additional seats. We cannot entertain this submission. Those who infringe the rules must pay for their lapse and the wrong done to the deserving students who ought to have been admitted has to be rectified. The best solution under the circumstances is to ensure that the strength of seats is increased in proportion to the wrong admissions made.'
16. The petitioner who appeared for the Entrance Test for the academic year 1996-97 was supplied with a wrong answer book and she wasted about 10 minutes on it. Then only she was supplied with the correct answer book. The claim of the petitioner is that her case has to be considered on the basis of the questions answered in the available time, did not find favour with the High Court. On appeal, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in (supra) having held that the petitioner is entitled to be considered for admission on the basis of questions answered in the available time of 2 1/2 hours instead of 3 hours, as half an hour was wasted in the wrong supply of answer book replaced by correct one, granted the relief as hereunder:
'In the circumstances and to do complete justice, it is necessary to grant the relief that is sought in the appellant's writ petition and to direct that the appellantshall be considered for admission to a Medical College in the State of Andhra Pradesh in a seat from the quota of the, State of Andhra Pradesh for the academic year 1998-99 session upon the basis that she has secured 94.555% marks at the EAMCET.'
17. In another case reported in M. Sreedevi v. University of Medical Sciences, Andhra Pradesh and others, 2000 (7) Supreme 594, the High Court having observed that had the authorities concerned recommended the meritorious candidates from the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Backward Classes in the open category, the petitioner would have got selection as a reserved candidate and refused to grant admission to the petitioner, but awarded compensation. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court having reversed the judgment observed that the appellant cannot be made to suffer for the same and gave the following directions:
'The civil appeal is allowed. The judgment under appeal is set aside. The University and its Admission Committee shall consider the candidature of the appellant for admission to a Medical College within the province of the University from the quota of the State in the appropriate category for the academic year 2000-2001 on the basis of her merit'.
18. Keeping the directions given by the Supreme Court in the above cases, I am of the view that the petitioners have to be accommodated at least during the academic year 2000-2001, for which admissions are completed. The Government as well as the Convener shall approach the AICTE immediately. The Secretary, Technical Education is also directed to approach the AICTE forthwith without loss of time within 24 hours from the date of receipt of a copy of this order seeking permission to create supernumerary seats to the candidates andsave them from frustration. In the light of the observations made by this Court in this judgment, AICTE shall consider the request of the Government for creating the required number of supernumerary seats in the Chemical Engineering Course for the academic year 2000-2001 within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the proposal from the Government. Simultaneously the Convener shall work out under which category the petitioners will get selection on the basis of ranking obtained by them and send provisional selection letters to the candidates as per the address given in their application.
19. I feel it appropriate to mention here the other contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that even as per the Presidential Orders, the students have to be treated as they belong to their respective local areas as they underwent practical training for a period of one year in their local areas to which they belong out of the study period of 3 1/2 years.
20. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed. No costs.