S.B. Sinha, C.J.
1. These writ petitions involving common questions of fact and law were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common order.
FACTS:
2. We may refer to the fact of the matter involved in Writ Petition No. 18126 of 2001 for the purpose of deciding their cases.
3. The petitioner therein appeared for EAMCET (Medical) 2001- 2002 and secured 1195 rank in the overall State ranking. He belongs to Backward Class 'A' community and he being a local candidate of Osmania University, the rank obtained by him in the University was 5 and therefore he has to get admission into 1st year M.B.B.S. course. He fell ill from 15-7-2001 to 31-7-2001 and undergone operation on 1-8-2001 and he was treated as inpatient up to 25-8-2001. Counselling for 1st year M.B.B.S., course was scheduled to be held from 30-8-2001 to 8-9-2001. When he approached Osmania Medical College so as to obtain application form, he was informed that the last date for submission of applications was 17-8-2001 and therefore he could not submit his application.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was under the impression that intimation letter for attending the counselling, as done in EAMCET Engineering, would be sent to him. But, no such intimation was received. Only a news item was published in EENADU Telugu daily newspaper on 18-7-2001 to the effect that the last date for submission of applications would be 17-8-2001. The petitioner therefore challenges the action of the respondent in not allowing him to submit the application on the ground of lapse of last date for submission being unreasonable, unfair, unjustified and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
5. The Deputy Registrar (Admissions) of the respondent-university affirmed an affidavit inter alia stating that the notification inviting applications for admission into M.B.B.S/B.D.S., courses for the academic year 2001-2002 was published in the news papers - Eenadu Telugu and Indian Express English Daily and all the Newspapers in the State.
6. The writ petitioner despite the same did not make any application in response thereto. Mere appearance at EAMCET and obtaining a rank does not entitle him to get admission into M.B.B.S., course automatically, unless the candidate satisfies the EAMCET Rules issued in G.O. Ms. No. 184, Education (EC.II) Department, dated 20-8-1993 by the Government. Rule 5(2)(a) of the said Rules prescribes submission of a common application for appearing at the Entrance Test and admission into Engineering Courses and for Medical students for appearing at the Entrance Test. Rule 7 (1) prescribes submission of second application for the courses other than Engineering. It is stated that the entire lists of candidates who had responded to notification have been fed into the computer and any direction to include a candidate after commencement of counselling would not only upset the whole process but also adversely affect the rights of candidates who submitted their applications within time.
7. It is also stated that the application of the petitioner in W.P.No. 18143 of 2001was acknowledged by the respondent-university on 18-8-2001 and not on 16-8-2001 as stated by her and the date was tampered with by the petitioner. The allegation of petitioner in W.P.No. 18251 of 2001 to the effect that she obtained a demand draft on 13-8-2001 and approached the second respondent therein for obtaining application form, but she was not furnished with the same is invented for the purpose of filing the writ petition.
8. The petitioners would submit that the University has rejected all the applications, which were received after 5 P.M., on 17-8-2001, and the said provision had not been relaxed in favour of any candidate.
CONTENTIONS:
9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would contend that making of an application in terms of Rule 7 (1) contained in G.O.Ms.No. 184, Education (EC.II) Department, dated 20-8-1993 is merely a formality and there are no penal consequences if the authorities violate the said rule. The learned counsel would submit that the application submitted by a candidate in terms of Rule 5 (2) (a) of the Rules to the Convenor at the time of appearing for the Entrance Test holds good for the purpose of admission inasmuch as attending to counselling is a mere formality. The learned counsel would contend that submission of application to the competent authority in terms of Rule 7 (1) is redundant.
10. Mr. K.G.K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-university, would submit that the Convenor of the Entrance Test upon inviting applications, conducts Entrance Test, prepares merit lists assigns ranking to the candidates appeared at the Entrance Test whereafter he would despatch rank cards to the candidates. He would contend that mere appearance in the Entrance Test and gettinga high rank does not automatically entitle a candidate to secure admission automatically, unless the candidate satisfies the rules and regulations of admissions prescribed by the University/Government. He would, therefore, contend that since all the petitioners have failed to comply with the requirement of the above rule, their request could not be acceded to.
RELEVANT PROVISIONS:
11. The Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 (Act No. 5 of 1983) was enacted to provide for regulation of admissions into Educational Institutions and to prohibit the collection of capitation fee in the State of Andhra Pradesh and thereby to curb the evil practice of collecting capitation fee at the time of admitting students into educational institutions. Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act provides that the admission into educational institutions shall be made either on the basis of the marks obtained in the qualifying examination or on the basis of ranking assigned in the entrance test conducted by the authority. Proviso appended to Section 3 (1) says that admission into Medical and Engineering Colleges shall be made only on the basis of the ranking assigned in the common entrance test conducted.
12. The Government of Andhra Pradesh framed the Andhra Pradesh Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission into Undergraduate Professional Courses through Common Entrance Test) Rules, 1993 in exercise of the powers conferred on it under Section 3 read with 15 of the said Act. Rule 2(c) defines 'Committee of Entrance Test' to mean the Committee empowered to conduct the Common Entrance Test and to prepare the list of candidates in the order of marks obtained in the Entrance Test through its Convenor basing on which admissionsinto various courses will be made. Rule 2 (cc) defines 'Committee of Admissions' to mean the Committee nominated by the authority to select and make allotment of candidates to all the professional institutions in the State for admissions in accordance with the provisions laid down therein. In terms of Rule 2 (e), the Competent Authority is the Chairman, Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education in respect of Engineering Courses and courses offered by Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University and Vice-Chancellor, University of Health Sciences in respect of Medical Courses. Rule 2(gg) says that the 'Convenor of Committee for Admissions' is the Commissioner of Technical Education or any other officer of such rank nominated by the competent authority for selection and allotment of candidates for admissions into various courses/institutions. Rule 2(o) defines 'qualified candidate' to mean the candidate who has appeared for the Common Entrance Test and has been assigned ranking in the Common Merit List. Rule 5(1) says that the Common Entrance Test shall be conducted by the University selected by the A. P. State Council of Higher Education. Rule 5 (2)(a) provides that the Chairman shall issue an advertisement in all the popular daily newspapers inviting applications in the form, common for the entrance examination and admission into all the courses of 'E' category and applications for entrance examination into the course of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University and the University of Health Sciences. The said advertisement shall contain the cost of application form, the fee for Entrance Test, the last date for submission of filled-in applications and the date of conduct of Entrance Test. Rule 5 (8) specifies the details of courses the University offering and the subject to be chosen for appearing the Entrance Test seeking admission into the Courses. Rule 6 provides that the candidates who have secured qualifying marks in the Entrance Test and the candidatesbelonging to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities to whom qualifying marks have not been prescribed, shall be assigned the ranking in the order of merit on the basis of the aggregate marks obtained in all the three relevant subjects out of the four subjects, viz.. Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry and Biology in which he had appeared. Rule 7 (1) of the Rules, providing for the procedure for admission into Government/University Professional Colleges/Regional Engineering Colleges and Private Professional Colleges, reads:
'For the categories for which no common application form for the Entrance Examination and admission is prescribed in Sub-rule (2) (a) of Rule 5, the Convenor of Committee for admissions will issue an advertisement inviting applications for admission from the qualified candidates who have been assigned ranking in the Common Entrance Test, who are desirous of seeking admission in Government University Professional College, Regional Engineering Colleges and Private Professional Colleges. The advertisement among other things, shall indicate various documents to be produced and the finds of fee payable to the institutions on such admission.'
Sub-rule (7) of Rule 7, which provides for the procedure for selection and allotment of candidates, reads thus':
'The selection of candidates and allotment of Courses/Institutions in respect of University Professional Colleges, Regional Engineering Colleges and Private Professional Colleges shall also be solely on the basis of merit as adjudged by the rank obtained in the Entrance Test subject to the condition that the candidate should have passed the qualifying examination with the minimum marks prescribed for the Entrance Test. However, mere appearance at the Entrance Test and obtaining highrank in the merit list does not entitle a candidate to be considered for admission automatically into any Course/Branch/ Institution unless he also satisfies the Rules and Regulations of Admission prescribed by the concerned University/ Government including marks to be obtained in the qualifying examination.'
13. Rule 7(10) provides that the Competent Authority or Convenor of Committee for Admissions shall give atleast ten days time to all the candidates after the free seats in private professional institutions are filled up to opt to be admitted against the payment seats so that the candidate shall deposit the fees in the Bank for the academic year in favour of the competent authority who shall transfer the same in favour of the appropriate college.
QUESTION:
14. Is submission of an application in the aforementioned situation mandatory is the question involved in these writ petitions?
FINDINGS:
15. It is not in dispute that counselling of the candidate is a must. It cannot be done suo motu by an authority which had not conducted the examination. Unless an application is filed, several essential matters as for example whether the candidate has passed the qualifying examination, caste, date of birth, etc., cannot be verified. At the time of sitting in EAMCET, one may not qualify the examination. Appearance at the qualifying examination is sufficient. Similarly, a candidate, in his application, may not state about his age, which is now accepted by the learned counsel for the parties to be a relevant factor as prescribed by the Medical Council of India. Further more, various options are required to be exercised by the candidates for example institution, university, and course.
16. Another important factor for consideration as to whether an application is necessary to be filed is that admission into several courses is offered and one candidate or the other may opt for one or the other course depending upon the availability thereof.
17. Rule 7(1) of the Rules postulates making an application. It is not in dispute that mere submission of an application for appearing at the EAMCET examination by itself does not confer any right upon a candidate to obtain admission. Right of a candidate to get admission in an institution for imparting technical education varies from stage to stage. Filing an application for appearance of the Entrance examination is merely one of the stages. Until the candidate secures the rank, he may not be considered for counselling for admission. Before the process of counselling is carried out, the question of his admission in a particular course or in the institution, in a free seat or payment seat cannot be determined and the process involves not only the fate of the candidate concerned but of other candidate also.
18. In a situation of this nature, the doctrine of legitimate expectation will have no application. We do not want to burden our judgment with catena of decisions on this point. This Bench in A. RATNAM v. GOVT. OF A.P. (W.P.No. 15469 of 2001 and batch decided on 7.9.2001) referred to the decision in MADRAS CITY WINE MERCHANTS' ASSOCIATION v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, : 1992(60)ELT674(SC) , wherein it was held :
The legitimate expectation may arise as (a) if there is an express promise given by a public authority; or (b) because of the existence of regular practice which the claimant can reasonably expect to continue; (c) such an expectation must be reasonable; and if there is a change in policy or in public interest the positionis altered by a rule or legislation no question of legitimate expectation would arise.
19. In the said case of A. RATNAM (supra), the Bench also referred to the decisions in COUNCIL OF CIVIL SERVICE UNIONS v. MINISTER FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE, 1985 AC 374, PLEASURE v. SECRETARY OF STATE, (1997) 3 All.ER 577 (HL), NAVJYOTHI CO-OP. GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY v. UNION OF INDIA, : AIR1993SC155 , FOOD CORPORATION, OF INDIA v. KAMADHENU CATTLE FEED INDUSTRIES, : AIR1993SC1601 , M.P. OIL EXTRACTION v. STATE OF M.P, AIR 1998 SC 145, NATIONAL BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. S. RAGHUNATHAN, : AIR1998SC2779 , PUNJAB COMMUNICATIONS LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA, : [1999]2SCR1033 .
20. No candidate can have a legitimate expectation that he should be admitted merely because he applied for appearing the entrance test. He has merely a right to be considered fairly in tenns of Article 14 of the Constitution of India (see D.WREN INTERNATIONAL LTD., v. ENGINEERS INDIA LTD., : AIR1996Cal424 ).
21. Yet another aspect of the matter is that Rule 7(1) prior to amendment by G.O. 163 requires that the candidates both in Engineering stream and medical stream to make an application as and when counselling is announced. By virtue of the said G.O., rules were amended. Rule 5(2)(a) provides that Chairman of Common Entrance Committee shall issue an advertisement in all the newspapers inviting common applications for the entrance examination and admission into Engineering courses. Whereas Rule 5(2)(a) provides for inviting applications for entrance examinations into the Courses of A.P. Agricultural University and University of Health Sciences, Rule 7(1) provides that for the categories viz,MBBS, Agricultural Courses, no application is prescribed under Rule 5(2)(a). The Convenor of the Committee for the admissions will have to issue an advertisement inviting applications for admission to those courses under Rule 5(2)(a). It is the Chairman of the Common Entrance Committee who is entitled to invite common application forms whereas under Rule 7(1), the Convenor of the Committee for admissions is entitled to do so after the entrance examination.
22. The submission made by the learned counsel that requirement of separate application for MBBS course is discriminatory cannot be accepted for reasons more than one.
23. As noticed above, the Chairman of the Entrance Committee requires to invite common applications for entrance examination as well as admission to Engineering courses. It means that common application would contain all the particulars which are required under the Rules including the details as to community, domicile whereas the in the case of entrance test for MBBS, as the particulars would not be available, the Rule 7(1) requires the Convenor of the Committee to invite applications after the entrance test.
24. Equality before law clause as adumbrated under Article 14 of the Constitution is not attracted in a situation of this nature. It is well settled that the Court would be loath to enter into the arena where for the purpose of classification, the legislature or delegated authority has excluded one category from operation of the law. It is quite possible that having regard to the large number of seats i.e. 42,000 seats to Engineering course, it may not be feasible to invite applications at two stages, but the same was not true in the case of MBBS where number of seats to be filled is less than 2000 seats and counselling is conducted by a Committeedifferent from the Committee which conducted entrance test.
25. The principle of reading down the provision as was submitted by Mr. Satya Prasad cannot also be accepted. He placed reliance on decisions in DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. D.T.C. MAZDOOR CONGRESS, : (1991)ILLJ395SC and in HYDERABAD KARNATAKA EDUCATION SOCIETY v. REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES, 2001 (1) SCC 566.
26. We are of the considered opinion that the ratio of the said decision is not attracted in the instant case reference to these authorities is misconceived.
27. It is well settled that the doctrine of reading down is a device adopted by the Constitutional Court to bring the impugned action or legislation within the Constitutional parameters so as to render it Constitutionally valid. For that purpose, the device of harmonious construction is adopted and a particular course of action is suggested by the Court while enforcing the impugned provision. Such course of action can be taken only when ex facie the impugned provision is found to be unconstitutional. Such is not the position here.
28. It is well settled that the legislation cannot be invalidated merely because it causes hardship to the petitioners or other similarly situated persons. (See DEVI PRASAD v. GOVT. OF A.P., : AIR1980SC1185 .) The law is intended to provide broad legislative policy and guidelines and it can never be expected to meet every situation and to satisfy every person who is covered by the legislation. The law requires that a candidate seeking admission for MBBS course and who appears for the EAMCET or obtains rank is required to apply on or before a specified date. The law which was enforced was applied equally in the cases of all candidates and if the submission of thelearned counsel for the petitioners is to be accepted, there could never be an end of considering the cases of candidates who on one pretext or the other had failed and / or neglected to file applications. The examination for the purpose of conferring degrees would lose its credibility if the entrance examination and admission programme is not completed within the time frame, (see MAHARASHTRA STATE BOARD OF SECONDARY AND HIGHER EDUCATION v. PARITOSH, : [1985]1SCR29 .)
29. If the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that counselling dates are not communicated in time on account of postal delay, is accepted, the Court in the name of equitable ground may have to pass an order which would be contrary to rules. The dates of counselling are published in newspapers both in English and vernacular languages and they are also broadcast as also telecast. The grounds taken in some of these writ petitions is that the parents of the petitioners are so poor and being belonging to scheduled castes community can neither subscribe newspapers nor have any means to know the details of dates of counselling are of no avail, having regard to the fact that the factual foundation of these submissions have not been impugned, nor can they be verified in a writ proceedings.
30. Sympathy as is well known by itself cannot be a ground to issue a writ of mandamus when the petitioners are not otherwise entitled thereto. (See ASHOK SAHA v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL, Cal. LT 1999 (HC) (2)1.).
31. For the reasons aforementioned, the writ petitions being devoid of merits are dismissed. No costs.