| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/423714 |
| Subject | Constitution |
| Court | Andhra Pradesh High Court |
| Decided On | Jan-23-2002 |
| Case Number | W.P. No. 20716 of 2001 |
| Judge | B. Sudershan Reddy, J. |
| Reported in | 2002(2)ALD290; 2002(1)ALT443 |
| Acts | Constitution of India - Articles 226, 371D and 371(1); Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions) Order, 1974; Constitution (Thirty-second Amendment) Act, 1973; Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Act, 1957; Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 - Sections 3 and 15(1); Andhra Pradesh Medical Colleges (Admission into Post Graduate Medical Courses) Rules, 1997 - Rules 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, 8(2) and (4) |
| Appellant | A. Rajakaran Reddy and ors. |
| Respondent | N.T.R. University of Health Sciences and ors. |
| Appellant Advocate | G. Vidyasagar, Adv. |
| Respondent Advocate | Government Pleader for ;Medical and Health, ;K.G.K. Prasad, ;Nuthalapati Krishna Murthy and ;C. Kodandaram, Advs. |
| Disposition | Petition allowed |
Excerpt:
constitution - reservation - articles 226, 371d and 371 (1) of constitution of india, andhra pradesh educational institutions (regulation of admissions) order, 1974, constitution (thirty-second amendment) act, 1973, public employment (requirement as to residence) act, 1957, sections 3 and 15 (1) of andhra pradesh educational institutions (regulation of admission and prohibition of capitation fee) act, 1983 and rules 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 8 (2) and 8 (4) of andhra pradesh medical colleges (admission into post graduate medical courses) rules, 1997 - writ to set aside admission into post graduate medical course as violative of education institutions order - order provided for reservation of 85% of available seats in favour of local candidates - on account of procedure adopted by respondent university reservation reduced to less than 85% - resulted in violation of presidential order - court observed that all three college cannot be grouped together for purpose of determining reservation of 85% - held, admissions shall be redone.
- motor vehicles act (59 of 1988)section 149 (2): [v. gopala gowda & jawad rahim, jj] insurers entitlement to defend the action joint appeal by insured and insurer - held, the language employed in enacting sub-section (2) of section 149 appears to be plain and simple and there is no ambiguity in it. it shows that when an insurer is impleaded and has been given notice of the case, it is entitled to defend the action only on grounds enumerated in sub-section (2) of section 149 of the act, and no other grounds are available to it. the insurer is not allowed to contest the claim of the injured or heirs of the deceased on other grounds, which are available to the insured. if insurer is permitted to contest the claim on other grounds it would mean adding more grounds of contest to the insurer and will be negation of the intention of the legislature and annihilate mandate of the provisions of sections 170 and 149 of the act. the insured can pursue appeal only after giving up the insurer as the appellant and not otherwise. in the instant case, the insurer has not withdrawn from party array but has remained prosecuting the appeal with the insured on the grounds which are available only to the insured. therefore, the joint appeal as filed by the insured and the insurer is not maintainable.
section 166: [v. gopala gowda & jawad rahim, jj] claim for compensation accident due to mechanical defect in the vehicle held, it is not in dispute that the claimant suffered injuries in an accident, which occurred during the course of his employment, albeit due to his negligence but law does not render him remediless. statutory right is conferred on him, accruing by virtue of his employment under insured to claim compensation under workmens compensation act. the insurer is statutorily duty bound to discharge the liability of the owner of the vehicle, to pay such compensation to the employee, as mandated under the provisions of section 149 of the act. the right of an injured employee or his dependents as the case may be to be compensated, when injury is suffered or death occurs during his employment, is recognised not only under workmens compensation act, but also under benevolent provisions under section 166 and 167 of the m.v. act. the right of driver to seek compensation is not restricted only to the workmens compensation act, it has been enlarged to enable such person to seek just compensation (sections 166 and 168), conferring upon him the right of election engrafted under section 167 of the act to choose either of the two forum. the only defence which the insurer could take is limit of its liability as enumerated under section 147 of the act, leading to contest, inter alia, only between insured and insurer and does not impact claimants right to recover the compensation determined by the tribunal which crystallizes into enforceable right against both. in the instant case, the claimant/driver has exercised right of election under section 167 of the act to seek compensation under section 166 of the act resulting in award passed by the tribunal. therefore, the insured and the insurer have no escape but to discharge the said award as directed. undisputedly, in this case as deduced for proved facts, the vehicle in question was not properly maintained by the owner and despite faulty brake system, the claimant had undertaken the hazardous journey to his peril at the behest of and at the instruction of the owner. the owner is therefore, tortfeasor.
section 168: [v. gopala gowda & jawad rahim, jj] insurers limit of liability - held, it is well settled that the liability of the insurance company for payment of compensation can be statutory or contractual. is for the insurance company to show that the insurance policy was a statutory policy and not a contractual policy to restrict its liability. that issue was neither raised before the tribunal nor is raised in this appeal requiring decision. thus, if at all the insurer has any valid ground to restrict its liability, it can proceed against the insured but firstly it has to discharge the award as required under section 149 (1) of the act. where the owner/insured has failed to maintain the vehicle as per prescribed safety standards and has caused the claimant to drive the vehicle with mechanical defects, the owner would be the tortfeasor and the claimant can maintain a petition seeking compensation under the provisions of the act, instead of seeking compensation under the workmens compensation act. on facts, held, the material evidence on record, particularly, with regard to the income of the claimant, his age, medical evidence and the evidence relating to pecuniary loss has not been considered by the tribunal in the correct perspective, which has resulted in passing of the impugned award, disproportionate to the pecuniary loss and the loss of future income of the victim. the settled principles governing determination of compensation has been given a go-bye. compensation of rs.4,15,150/- awarded by the tribunal was enhanced to rs.8,20,000/-. - 9. it is alleged that all the unreserved seats in medical group as well as in surgical group courses at post graduate level are being accommodated in the osmania medical college only. 12. precisely, it is the case of the petitioners that in osmania university local area, there are three institutions and the unreserved seats are to be distributed equally among all the three institutions. the presidential order clearly mandates that the admissions shall be made on the basis of the available seats in every course of study. this formula received wide support in andhra pradesh and was endorsed by the state government. in the light of the historical background in which articles 371-d and 371e were inserted in the constitution and the presidential order came to be made, it would be reasonable to assume that the order protects the interest of local candidates of each of the three local areas treating each local area as a unit -and thus provides equal opportunities to the candidates of the state as a whole which is both in consonance with public interest as well as in accordance with the requirement of providing equitable opportunities and facilities for the people belonging to different parts of the state which is the mandate of article 371-d. for purposes of paragraph 5, if there is one available seat in each of the three local areas and according to the contention of the petitioner each seat is treated as unreserved, candidates of one local area having better rank in entrance examination will secure admission and no seat will be available for candidates of other two local areas. paragraph 4 notifies the conditions, which are required to be satisfied before one can be treated as a local candidate. in the note (b) to rule 10 of the admission rules, it is clearly stated that the procedure indicated in annexure-iii to g. in fact, rule 4 of the admission rules clearly says that the reservation in favour of the local candidates shall be made as provided in the presidential order. it is further contended that the presidential order clearly mandates that the admissions shall be made on the basis of available seats in every course of study. kodandaram, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents advances similar contention and further contends that the presidential order itself is made to rectify the regional imbalances and the selection of the candidates by making reservation of 85% of seats university-wise would be perfectly in conformity with the presidential order. this position is clearly clarified by this court in padmanabha reddy vs. while rule 5 of the presidential order aims at admission of local candidates to the extent of 85% of the available seats in every course of study provided by the university or any educational institution which is subject to the control of the state government, even in rule 8 (1) of the admission rules, it is clearly mentioned that 85% seats in each course shall be reserved for local candidates. the selection committee or the competent authority shall, while allotting the candidates from out of the lists prepared as per rule 6 (1) (b), (d) and (e) to each individual college, see that 85% of the seats in such college are filled with local candidates and the remaining 15% unreserved seats with open candidates, maintaining the rules of reservation for sc, st and bc communities and other reserved categories specified in clause (b) of sub-rule (4) of rule 8 both in respect of local candidates as well as open candidates. , communities and other reserved categories specified in clause (b) of sub-rule (4) of rule 8. we are, thus, of the considered view that such procedure alone would be just and proper for filling up seats in each individual college and any other mode would result in breach of rules regulating region-wise reservation of seats as well as the rules governing the reservation of sc, st, and bc communities and others. the learned single judge as well as the division bench clearly held that the reservations are to be made institution wise. it is very well settled, what constitutes binding precedent is the ratio decidendi of a case. in a situation like this, all that the court can say is, if the authorities want to allow the students already admitted under open competition category allow them to prosecute their studies, at the same time comply with the orders of this court made in earlier writ proceedings. ' 43. it is thus clearly evident that the court was concerned with the admission of meritorious bc, sc and st candidates by strictly adhering to the principles laid down by the supreme court in ritesh r. it is well settled that in matters relating to educational institutions, if two interpretations are possible, the courts would ordinarily be reluctant to accept that interpretation which would upset and reverse the long course of action and decision taken by such educational authorities and would accept the interpretati8on made by such educational authorities. it would be interesting to notice that the university itself followed the institution-wise reservation in favour of the local candidates and not university-wise and stated so in the counter affidavit filed in y. contemporanea expositio, is a well settled principle or doctrine which applies only to the construction of ambiguous language in old statutes. it is therefore well to remember what lord watson said in clyde navigation trustees v. ' 52. it is well settled that mistaken construction of the statute by the persons who dealt with the statute does not bind the court so as to prevent the court in giving to it its true construction.1. the writ petitioners - four in number invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under article 226 of the constitution of india praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ 'to set aside the admission into post graduate medical courses in osmania/kakatiya area medical colleges for the academic year 2001-2002 as violative of a.p. educational institutions (regulation of admissions) order, 1974; and consequently direct the respondent-university to make admissions in accordance with the a.p. educational institutions (regulation of admissions) order, 1974 duly reserving 85% of the seats in the each college in osmania university and kakatiya university area medical colleges for the academic year 2001-2002.....'2. before adverting to the question as to whether the issue requires any interference of this court in the matter of admissions already made by the post graduate selection committee 2001-2002, the relevant facts perhaps in detail may have to be noticed:factual matrix:pleadings of the petitioners: the petitioners specifically challenge the action of the respondent university in providing seats in the post graduate medical courses in 'un-reserved quota' only in osmania medical college. according to the petitioners such providing of seats only in one particular college is illegal, arbitrary and violative of presidential orders.3. the petitioners have passed m.b.b.s. courses and qualified for taking admission into p.g. medical courses. n.t.r. university of health sciences (for short 'the respondent-university') has issued a notification dated 26-7-2001 notifying admissions into post graduate medical courses in the medical colleges affiliated to the respondent-university for the academic year 2001-2002. the petitioners herein have applied for admission into post graduate medical courses pursuant to the said notification. the entrance examination was held on 12-9-2001. the results were duly announced on 18-9-2001. the hall ticket numbers and rank secured by each of the petitioners are as follows:sl. no. petitioner's name hall ticket number rank 1. dr. a.rajakaran reddy 018534 61 2. dr. m.ashwani kumar 018081 09 3. dr. m.srinivas reddy 018792 89 4. dr. g.sunil kumar 01840 104 4. the petitioners claim that each one of them is eligible and entitled to get a seat in the faculty of their choice in osmania medical college. on account of the illegal procedure adopted by the respondent-university they were deprived of their legitimate right to get seats in osmania medical college. however, they have been given provisional selection as follows:sl. no. petitioner's name course offered name of college 1. dr. a.rajakaran reddy m.s. (general) kakatiya medical college warangal 2. dr. m.ashwani kumar m.s. (ortho.) gandhi medi- cal college 3. dr. m.srinivas reddy m.d. (anat) osmania medi- cal college 4. dr. g.sunil kumar diploma in child health (dch) osmania medi- cal college 5. there is no dispute whatsoever that all the petitioners herein belong to the osmania university 'local area'.6. it is further stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that in osmania university local area there are three colleges, viz., osmania medical college, gandhi medical college both situated in hyderabad and kakatiya medical college at warangal where the p.g. courses are being offered. in the medical group there are 29 seats available in osmania medical college; 14 seats in gandhi medical college and 12 seats in kakatiya medical college, warangal. in all, put together there are 55 seats. similarly in surgical group there are 21 seats available in osmania medical college, 11 seats in gandhi medical college and 12 seats in kakatiya medical college.7. it is an admitted fact that the admissions into 85% of available seats are reserved in favour of local candidates in relation to local area as provided in the a.p. educational institutions (regulation of admissions) order, 1974 (for short 'the presidential order').8. it is stated that out of 55 seats that are available in the medical group in the osmania university local area spread over in three colleges referred to hereinabove, 10 seats are earmarked as unreserved, wherein both the local and non-local candidates would be entitled to seek admission on merit.9. it is alleged that all the unreserved seats in medical group as well as in surgical group courses at post graduate level are being accommodated in the osmania medical college only. the petitioners give the details of the candidates admitted in osmania medical college under the unreserved quota as follows:sl.no. rank branch 01 01 m.d. (rd) 02 02 m.d. (general medicine) miss.nagasree 03 03 m.d. (general medicine) 04 05 m.s. (ortho) 05 11 m.d. (o&g;) 06 12 m.d. (ped.) 07 14 m.d. (ped.) 08 28 m.s. (gen. sur.) 09 32 m.s. (gen. sur.) 10 53 m.s. (ent) 11 66 m.s. (ortho) 12 83 m.d. (t.b.) 13 99 m.d. (anans) 10. that on account of the procedure adopted by the respondent-university, the percentage of reservation made in favour of the local candidates is reduced to less than 85% of available seats. it is stated that out of 50 seats available in osmania medical college13 candidates belong to unreserved quota are admitted, which amounts to 26% of the total available seats. the seats made available to the local candidates are reduced to 74% from that of 85% of seats reserved in favour of local candidates. it is thus contended that the procedure adopted by the respondent-university in filling up of the seats in osmania medical college has resulted in violation of the presidential order.11. it is further stated that the admission into the post graduate medical courses is governed by act 5 of 1983. section 3 (2) of act 5 of 1983 mandates that admission into the educational institutions shall be made by the government in accordance with the presidential order. the rules notified in g.o.ms.no.260, health, medical & family welfare (e2) department, dated 10-7-1997 prescribe that the rule of reservation shall be as provided in the presidential order.12. precisely, it is the case of the petitioners that in osmania university local area, there are three institutions and the unreserved seats are to be distributed equally among all the three institutions. instead, the unreserved seats are being filled up only in one institution i.e., osmania medical college. it is the case of the petitioners that the respondent-university is required to make admissions duly reserving 85% of available seats to local candidates, institution-wise, subject to the community reservation and other non-statutory reservations. it is the claim of the petitioners that 85% of available seats in each institution are required to be reserved in favour of the local candidates.13. the petitioners rely upon the judgments in nitesh narayan v. university of health sciences and another1 rendered by a learned single judge and p.chinnayya v. nitesh narayan2 rendered by a division bench of this court.university's case:in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-university, it is inter alia stated that the question that falls for consideration in the instant writ petition is not res integra but squarely covered by the judgments of this court rendered in w.p.no.33456 of 1998 and batch, dated 20-4-1999 and w.a.no.1547 of 1997 and batch, dated 17-7-1998. according to the averments made in the counter affidavit, the division bench had finally held that the selections to mbbs course shall be made local area/university area wise only. 'the concept of maintaining institution wise has totally disappeared.' reliance is sought to be placed upon a division bench judgment of this court in w.a.no.795 of 1999 and batch, dated 23-2-2000. the crux of the case and the defence of the respondent-university is evident from the averments made in paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit, which is to the following effect: 'it is humbly submitted that the presidential order, 1974 do not anywhere specifies that the selections shall be made institution wise or the unreserved seats available in the university area shall be distributed within the colleges located in university local area. the presidential order clearly mandates that the admissions shall be made on the basis of the available seats in every course of study. it is humbly submitted that the available seats in osmania medical college, gandhi medical college and kakatiya medical college along with the unreserved seats with their eligibility and fraction is worked out in g.o.ms.no.4 enclosed to the counter affidavit. the contents of the g.o. may be read as part and parcel of this counter affidavit.' 14. in the counter affidavit it is further stated that the request made by the petitioners before this court is contrary to the long drawn procedure and is unworkable. the available seats in osmania medical college are more in number than the available seats in other two medical colleges are put together and as such the petitioners are not justified in insisting that the unreserved seats shall be equally distributed to the three medical colleges located in the local area in ratio of 85:15. it is submitted that except in general medicine, general surgery courses there is no possibility of providing any seat in gandhi or kakatiya medical colleges in favour of unreserved categories.15. it is submitted that the same procedure as is followed for this academic year is being followed by the respondent-university for the last more than two decades and the same cannot be interfered with and interdicted at this stage by this court. the admissions already made cannot be interfered with. it is submitted that if the rules are susceptible to more than one interpretation, the court would accept such interpretation as the one placed by the authorities so that the long drawn practice in vogue may not be upset. it is further submitted that the selections shall be made course wise in each group of the subjects mentioned and there is no provision for adding medicine, surgery, obstetrics, gynecology and non-clinical subjects and calculate the percentage of seats in favour of local and unreserved candidates. the suggested procedure is contrary to the rules issued in g.o.ms.no.260, which are statutory rules. the selections, allotment and admissions made by the respondent-university are in accordance with the statutory rules.16. rest of the averments made in the counter affidavit perhaps need not be noticed as they do not have any bearing on the question that falls for consideration and the issue requiring resolution by this court. some of the averments made in the counter affidavit are totally irrelevant. the court is left with a feeling that such unnecessary averments are made in the counter affidavit in order to confuse the issue and in order to complicate the question that falls for consideration.pleadings of the contesting respondents:in the counter affidavit filed by the contesting respondents, it is inter alia stated that the petitioners are not directly affected by the admissions already made. the petitioners would not derive any direct benefit even if the writ petition is allowed. rest of the allegations made in the counter affidavit filed by the contesting respondents may not be strictly relevant. in nutshell, it is the contention of the contesting respondents that their admission is within and among the unreserved seats and as such their admission does not violate the presidential order. the respondents are non-local candidates and it is conceded that they are eligible only to compete for the seats kept unreserved. the rest of the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the contesting respondents are more argumentative in nature rather than pleadings. the submissions made by the learned counsel on their behalf would be referred and dealt with appropriately.17. the simple but important question that arises for consideration in this writ petition relates to the method of implementation of the rule of reservation in favour of local candidates in the matter of admission to post graduate medical courses, in the medical colleges in the state of andhra pradesh.special constitutional provisions with respect to the state of andhra pradesh and background thereof:article 371d of the constitution of india makes special provisions in the matter of admissions to educational institutions and public employment with respect to the state of andhra pradesh. the said provision is inserted by the constitution (thirty-second amendment) act, 1973 with effect from 1-7-1974. the objects and reasons of the constitution (thirty-second amendment) act, 1973 may be noted in order to know the background as to the insertion of article 371d of the constitution of india: 'when the state of andhra pradesh was formed in 1956, certain safeguards were envisaged for the telegana area in the matter of development and also in the matter of employment opportunities and educational facilities for the residents of that area. the provisions of clause (1) of article 371 of the constitution were intended to give effect to certain features of these safeguards. the public employment (requirement as to residence) act, 1957, was enacted, inter alia, to provide for employment opportunities for residents of telegana area. but in 1969, the supreme court held the relevant provision of the act to be unconstitutional in so far as it related to the safeguards envisaged for the telegana area. owing to a variety of causes, the working of the safeguards gave rise to a certain amount of dissatisfaction sometimes in the telegana area and sometimes in the other areas of the state. measures were devised from time to time to resolve the problems. during 1973, several leaders of andhra pradesh made a concerted effort to analyse the factors which had been giving rise to the dissatisfaction and find enduring answers to the problems with a view to achieving fuller emotional integration of the people of andhra pradesh. on the 21st september, 1973, they suggested certain measures (generally known as the six-point formula) indicating a uniform approach for promoting accelerated development of the backward areas of the state so as to secure the balanced development of the state as a whole and for providing equitable opportunities to different areas of the state in the matter of education, employment and career prospects in public services. this formula received wide support in andhra pradesh and was endorsed by the state government. the present act provides the necessary constitutional authority for giving effect to the to the six-point formula in so far as it relates to the provision of equitable opportunities for people of different areas of the state in the matter of admission to educational institutions and public employment. the act provides, inter alia, for the constitution of an administrative tribunal to deal with certain disputes and grievances relating to public services. it also empowers parliament to legislate for establishing a central university in the state and contains provisions for the validation of certain appointments made in the past. as the six-point formula provides for the discontinuance of the regional committees constituted under clause (1) of article 371 of the constitution, the act also provides for the repeal of that clause.' 18. the underlying object of article 371d of the constitution of india and the presidential order has been noticed by a full bench of this court in b.sudhakar, dr. v. union of india3. the full bench observed:'the scheme contained in paragraph 5 of the presidential order is to reserve 85% of the available seats for the candidates of each local area and leave the balance 15% as unreserved. in the light of the historical background in which articles 371-d and 371e were inserted in the constitution and the presidential order came to be made, it would be reasonable to assume that the order protects the interest of local candidates of each of the three local areas treating each local area as a unit - and thus provides equal opportunities to the candidates of the state as a whole which is both in consonance with public interest as well as in accordance with the requirement of providing equitable opportunities and facilities for the people belonging to different parts of the state which is the mandate of article 371-d. we cannot so construe the provisions of paragraph 5 as to frustrate or defeat the very purpose of the presidential order. now let us elaborate this position. for purposes of paragraph 5, if there is one available seat in each of the three local areas and according to the contention of the petitioner each seat is treated as unreserved, candidates of one local area having better rank in entrance examination will secure admission and no seat will be available for candidates of other two local areas. this, in our view, will perpetuate the mischief which was sought to be remedied and thus frustrate the object of the presidential order. there can be no doubt that reservation is anathema to merit in the matter of admission to courses of studies in which there is stiff competition as that alone satisfies the requirement of article 14 of the constitution. but just as inequality among equals results in denial of equal opportunities, so also, equality among unequals results in denial of equal opportunities and the concept of equal protection of law becomes a mere concept of philosophy with no practical significance. therefore, in the interest of the community as a whole, for balancing interests of various groups, categories and regions and for providing equitable opportunities and facilities for the people of different parts of the state to achieve satisfaction of public at large, reservation has to be accepted as a necessary factor, be it on caste basis or regional basis or any other rational basis. this is the underlying object of article 371-d and the presidential order.' sub-clause (b) of clause (2) of article 371-d of the constitution of india empowers the president to specify any part or parts of the state which shall be regarded as the 'local area', inter alia, for the purposes of admission to any university within the state or to any other educational institution which is subject to the control of the state government; while sub-clause (c) empowers him to specify the extent to which, the manner in which and the conditions subject to which, preference or reservation shall be given or made inter alia in the matter of admission to any such university or other educational institution referred to in sub-clause (b), in favour of candidates who have resided or studied for any period specified in the order in the local area in respect of such university or other educational institution, as the case may be. the president in exercise of the powers conferred in clauses (1) and (2) of article 371d of the constitution of india made and issued the andhra pradesh educational institutions (regulation of admissions) order, 1974 which came into force with effect from 1st july, 1974. 19. paragraph 2 of the said presidential order defines several expressions including the 'local area', 'local candidate', 'state-wide educational institution', 'state-wide university'. paragraph 3 specifies three local areas into which the entire state of andhra pradesh is divided. paragraph 4 notifies the conditions, which are required to be satisfied before one can be treated as a local candidate. explanation to paragraph 4 defines 'educational institution' for the purpose of paragraph 4 and according to the explanation 'educational institution' means a university or any educational institution recognised by the state government, a university or other competent authority. paragraph 5 provides for reservation in favour of local candidates in non-state-wide universities and educational institutions. according to paragraph 5 (1), admission to 85% of the available seats in every course of study provided by the andhra university, the nagarjuna university, the osmania university, the kakatiya university or sri venkateswara university or by any educational institution (other than a state-wide university or a state-wide educational institution) which is subject to the control of the state government shall be reserved in favour of the local candidates in relation to the local area in respect of such university or other educational institution.20. the state-wide universities are mentioned in the schedule to the presidential order. the medical colleges in the state of andhra pradesh are not among those notified in the schedule. therefore, they are not the state-wide institutions.21. a plain reading of those paragraphs would make it clear that 85% of the available seats in every course of study provided by the respective universities or by any educational institution (other than a state-wide university or a state-wide educational institution) which is subject to the control of the state government shall be reserved in favour of the local candidates in relation to the local area in respect of such university or other educational institution.22. it is clear and about which there is no dispute whatsoever that the local candidates are also eligible to apply for admission into 15% of unreserved seats, besides being exclusively eligible for admission against the seats reserved for them. the local candidates are not ineligible for competing or for claiming seats from out of 15% unreserved seats. the reservation of 85% seats made in favour of the local candidates is the minimum. the non-local candidates are not eligible for competing for and in any manner entitled to intrude into the 85% of the available seats in every course of study reserved in favour of the local candidates. it is exclusively meant for the local candidates in relation to local area in respect of such university or other educational institution under the control of the state government. in a given case and situation all the 15% unreserved seats may also be filled in by the local candidates provided they become eligible on the basis of their merit; and further provided there shall be at least one unreserved seat. 23. it has to be borne in mind that paragraph 9 of the presidential order gives an overriding effect as it declares that the provisions of the presidential order shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation or other order (whether made before or after the commencement of the presidential order) in respect of admissions to any university or to any other educational institution subject to control of the state government. this aspect of the matter would be dealt with appropriately while considering the mutual operation and interaction of various acts, admission rules and the presidential order and the instructions of the state government issued to give effect to the presidential order.24. statutory rules regulating admissions:the government of andhra pradesh in exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 read with sub-section (1) of section 15 of the andhra pradesh educational institutions (regulation of admission and prohibition of capitation fee) act, 1983 (a.p. act no.5 of 1983) and in supersession of all the rules in force governing the admissions into post graduate courses made the rules for admission into the post graduate medical courses in the state of andhra pradesh known as 'the andhra pradesh medical colleges (admission into post graduate medical courses) rules, 1997 (for short 'the admission rules'). rule 2 of the admission rules mandates the university of health sciences to notify the number of seats in post graduate degree and diploma courses in the various disciplines in each medical college and not in any university. this is very significant. rule 4 in its turn says that admission to 85% of the seats shall be reserved in favour of the local candidates in relation to the local area as provided in the presidential order as amended from time to time. clause (b) of rule 4 specifies the 'local area'. the expression 'educational institution' is again defined in explanation to rule 4. 'educational institution' means a university or any educational institution recognised by the state government, a university or any other competent authority. rule 10 of the admission rules provides the procedure for selections. in the note (b) to rule 10 of the admission rules, it is clearly stated that the procedure indicated in annexure-iii to g.o.p.no.646, education, dt.10-7-1979 shall be followed in selecting the local candidates.25. it is required to notice that the definition of 'local candidate', 'local area' and 'educational institution' is the same as in the presidential order. in fact, rule 4 of the admission rules clearly says that the reservation in favour of the local candidates shall be made as provided in the presidential order. it is thus clear that the admission rules are to be read so as to be in conformity with the presidential order and comprehensive instructions in g.o.p.no.646, education, dated 10-7-1979 issued in pursuance of paragraph 8 of the presidential order. the admissions into post graduate medical courses in the state of andhra pradesh are governed not only by the admission rules, but also by the presidential order and the instructions issued by the government aforesaid. according to clause (10) of article 371d of the constitution of india, the provisions of the said article and of any order made by the president there under shall have effect notwithstanding anything in any other provision of the constitution or in any other law for the time being in force. thus, the admission rules providing the rules governing the admission into post graduate courses are to be read to be in conformity with the presidential order and the instructions issued by the government contained in g.o.p.no.646, education, dated 10-7-1979. the presidential order prevails over any other law to the extent of inconsistencies. we have already noticed paragraph 9 of the presidential order which expressly gives an overriding effect to the presidential order, and in particular, in the matter of admissions to any university or to any other educational institution subject to control of the state government. we shall bear in mind this background of the presidential order, instructions issued in g.o.p.no.646, dated 10-7-1979 and the admission rules to consider the question that falls for consideration of the court.26. sri g.vidyasagar, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that admissions to 85% of the available seats in post graduate degree and diploma courses in each medical college are required to be reserved in favour of the local candidates. each educational institution offering post graduate degree and diploma course is to be taken as a unit for the purposes of providing 85% of the available seats reserved in favour of the local candidates.27. sri k.g.k. prasad, learned standing counsel for the respondent-university contends that the presidential order does not specify that the selections shall be made institution-wise. it is contended that the presidential order does not mandate that the unreserved seats available in the university area shall be distributed within the colleges located in the university local area. it is further contended that the presidential order clearly mandates that the admissions shall be made on the basis of available seats in every course of study.28. sri c.kodandaram, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents advances similar contention and further contends that the presidential order itself is made to rectify the regional imbalances and the selection of the candidates by making reservation of 85% of seats university-wise would be perfectly in conformity with the presidential order. institution-wise reservation is not contemplated by the presidential order.29. at the outset, it is required to notice that the admission rules by themselves do not provide reservation in favour of local candidates in relation to local area. the admission rules merely recognise the right of reservation to the extent of 85% of the seats in favour of the local candidates. the reservation in favour of local candidates is a constitutional mandate. such reservations are provided in the presidential order. the presidential order itself is promulgated pursuant to the constitutional mandate enshrined in article 371-d of the constitution of india. the admission rules, therefore, are required to be read in conformity with the presidential order. in case of any inconsistencies between the presidential order and the admission rules, obviously the presidential order shall prevail. the admission rules have to yield to the presidential order. this position is clearly clarified by this court in padmanabha reddy v. state of a.p.430. paragraph 5 of the presidential order provides for reservation of 85% of the available seats in every course of study offered by the universities or any educational institution, which is under the control of the state government in favour of the local candidates. it does not speak about the university-wise reservations. it speaks about the admission to 85% of the available seats in every course of study provided by the universities and educational institutions.31. now let us consider whether the admission rules provide institution-wise or university-wise area reservation and whether the reservations so made are in conformity with the presidential order. rule 9 of the admission rules relates to preparation of merit lists. rule 10 provides the procedure of selections. the said rules are re-produced:9. merit lists:- (i) the examination board constituted by the ntr university of health sciences shall get the entrance test papers valued either manually or mechanically and prepare a common master merit list of the candidates qualified on the basis of marks obtained in the entrance test subject to sub-rule (ii). the marks of the candidates in order of merit and in order of hall ticket numbers will be displayed on the notice boards of the colleges and in the office of the ntr university of health sciences. (ii) in case of equality of marks in the entrance test, the total percentage of marks in mbbs excluding pre-professional course non-medical subjects of 1st year integrated mbbs course up to 2 decimal places shall be taken into consideration for fixing the merit of the candidates. if the entrance test marks and mbbs marks are equal, marks obtained in the concerned subject in mbbs shall be taken into consideration if the candidates opt for the same subject. (iii) any candidate who wishes to have re-totalling of marks should pay a fee specified by the uhs to enable the university to verify the same. such application shall be submitted within 5 days after announcement of the results to the registrar, university of health sciences, vijayawada. 10. selections:- (i) provisional selection shall be made by the selection committee constituted by the university of health sciences subject to these rules. (ii) the university of health sciences will announce the dates and centre or centres at which selections will be made. (iii) the selection committee shall display the charts showing the allocation of seats to scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and backward classes in the medical colleges of the university area, local area wise at the time of selections. (iv) on the dates notified the candidates shall be called in order of merit by the selection committees and ask them to opt for subject of the candidates choice in the then available subjects in the college. the selection committee will issue the selection order immediately. the selection will be made only from among the candidates who physically present themselves when their hall ticket numbers are called out in order of merit. (v) (a) claims of the candidates will not be considered if they are absent when called at the time of selection and the next in the merit would be selected. the selected candidate shall submit the original certificates to the selection committee and pay fees immediately at the counters available at the centre. the candidates shall submit required bond on or before the date fixed for the same. (b) if a candidate after choosing the subject fails to pay the fees or after paying the fees fails to submit the bond the selection of such candidate stands cancelled automatically. (c) the candidates shall be called to appear before the selection committee one after the other and they shall not enter the selection committee room in groups. (d) any person who obstructs the proceedings of the selection committee or otherwise misbehaves or causes disturbance at the selection committee meetings and obstructs or causes obstruction to its peaceful functioning shall be liable for such disciplinary action as may be taken by the university. (e) candidates shall be present till the end of the selections and be available in case if they are recalled for any reasons. n.b. (a) the procedure envisaged in g.o.ms.no.996, e & s.w. department, dt.11-11-75 will be followed in selecting the candidates. (b) procedure indicated in annexure-iii to g.o.p.no.646, education, dt.10-7-79 shall be followed in selecting the local candidates. (vi) (a) vacancies after the 1st selection shall be displayed on the date notified in all the medical colleges. these vacancies shall be filled by the selection committee on the dates at the centres to be notified by the university as per merit, subject to these rules. (b) resultant vacancies will be open to all the candidates with ranks below the rank of the candidate who vacated the seat for that speciality, in that area and also those candidates who were absent in the earlier selections. (vii) the selection committee shall have power to review the provisional selection in case of an admissions be should mis-representation, fraud or gross injustice. in all matters relating to the selections and admissions the decision of the selection committee shall be final and binding on the candidates and selection should not be questioned after closure of admissions. (viii) the vacant seats in non-clinical subjects pre and para-clinical subjects at the end of each selection in each region shall be filed from among the applicants who are in service candidates who have applied through their respective heads of departments on a separate proforma, available at university of health sciences in advance to the registrar, university of health sciences. the selections shall be done on the basis of merit basing on mbbs marks. these applicants need not appear to the post graduate medical entrance test. the candidates so selected in non-clinical subjects pre and para-clinical subjects shall submit an undertaking that the candidate shall serve the government for a period of 10 years and execute bond to the effect that in default an amount of rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) shall be paid by the candidate to the government of a.p. 32. the above rules read with rule 4, which we have already adverted to, would make it clear that 85% of seats in favour of the candidates in each course shall be reserved and the admissions shall accordingly be made. the reservation has to be made institution wise. this is the view taken by a learned single judge of this court in nitesh narayan (1 supra). in the said judgment it is held:'while rule 5 of the presidential order aims at admission of local candidates to the extent of 85% of the available seats in every course of study provided by the university or any educational institution which is subject to the control of the state government, even in rule 8 (1) of the admission rules, it is clearly mentioned that 85% seats in each course shall be reserved for local candidates. further in rule 8 (2), the reservations are provided in each course in each institution for sc/st/bc, women etc. this indicates that the reservation has to be made institution-wise. if the reservation is to be made on the basis of university area wise, it would not conform to the percentage of seats exclusively reserved for locals. on the other hand, if 85% of the seats are to be filled up exclusively by the local candidates in each institution subject to the reservations made by the state government for sc, st, bc etc., the imbalance would not persist. therefore, the only inevitable interpretation that can be drawn in para 5 of the presidential order and also rule 8 of the admission rules is that 85% of the available seats should be reserved in each course and in each institution, in other words, the order and the rules aim at institution-wise reservations and not university area wise. that is why, in para 5 of the presidential order, it specifically refers to the available seats in every course of study provided by the educational institutions. similarly, in rule 8 (2) of the admission rules, it is mentioned that so and so percentage of seats in each course in each institution shall be reserved for candidates belonging to various communities. thus, i hold that in each institution, in the instant case, in each medical college offering m.b.b.s., course, 85% of the seats shall be reserved for locals subject to community and other reservations and 15% of the seats shall be left open. admittedly, in the instant case, the health university did not follow this process by earmarking 85% and 15% to locals and non-locals but filled up the seats exclusively reserved for local candidates by the candidates falling under the un-reserved category. thus, the action of the health university is in contravention of the presidential order and the rule 8 of the admission rules.'33. a division bench of this court confirmed the above view of the learned single judge in p.chinnayya (2 supra), wherein it is observed:'in the light of the above, we are unable to persuade ourselves to approve the conclusion of the learned single judge that the reservation of seats on university area-wise is not contemplated either under the presidential order or the eamcet rules. we, accordingly, set aside the same. however, we make it clear that this conclusion of ours should not be understood as if the institution/college-wise reservation is prohibited. as already noted above, the learned counsel for the appellants and the petitioners have no objection to reserve 85% of the seats to local candidates and the remaining 15% of the seats to unreserved candidates in each institution/college subject to observance of the procedure contemplated under rules 6, 7 and 8 of the eamcet rules. we also feel that institution-wise/college-wise reservation as directed by the learned single judge in direction no.3 is possible or even mandatory while maintaining the region-wise or university area-wise reservation as contemplated under the presidential order or the eamcet rules.' (emphasis is of mine).34. the principle is reiterated by the division bench in paragraph 3 of the operative portion of the said judgment, which is to the following effect:'the selection committee or the competent authority shall, while allotting the candidates from out of the lists prepared as per rule 6 (1) (b), (d) and (e) to each individual college, see that 85% of the seats in such college are filled with local candidates and the remaining 15% unreserved seats with open candidates, maintaining the rules of reservation for sc, st and bc communities and other reserved categories specified in clause (b) of sub-rule (4) of rule 8 both in respect of local candidates as well as open candidates.' (emphasis is of mine).35. however, the learned standing counsel for the respondent-university and the learned counsel for the contesting respondents would place reliance upon certain observations made by the division bench in paragraph 14 of the said judgment, which are to the following effect:'it is evident from the above that categorisation of local candidates has been made with reference to the educational institution where the candidate has studied and the local area where such educational institution is situate. thus, on a combined reading of the provisions of paragraph 3, 4 and 5 of the presidential order, we are of the clear view that paragraph 5 contemplates reservation of 85% of the available seats in every course on local area wise or university area-wise and not institution/college-wise. this is how the government also understood the mode of reservation contemplated under paragraphs 5 and 6 and the same is evident from g.o.ms.no.749 education, educational department dated 24-8-1974 where under instructions were issued regarding the manner of selection of local candidates.'36. in my considered opinion, the observations so made by the division bench are not the authority for the proposition that 85% of the available seats in every course of study are to be reserved in favour of the local candidates, university-wise, and not institution-wise. the observations made in paragraph 14 are to be read along with the paragraph 17 and operative portion of the judgment referred to hereinabove. if so read, the ratio of the judgment would be absolutely clear. in the same judgment, it is further observed by the court in clear terms:'it becomes imperative to allot local candidates and open candidates to each individual college proportionate to the number of seats available in such individual college. in other words, at the stage of allotting the candidates from out of the lists prepared as per rule 6 (1) (b), (d) and (e) to each individual college it is mandatory that the selection committee or the competent authority shall see that 85% of the seats in such college are filled with local candidates and the remaining 15% unreserved seats with open candidates subject to observance of rules of reservations for s.c., s.t., and b.c., communities and other reserved categories specified in clause (b) of sub-rule (4) of rule 8. we are, thus, of the considered view that such procedure alone would be just and proper for filling up seats in each individual college and any other mode would result in breach of rules regulating region-wise reservation of seats as well as the rules governing the reservation of sc, st, and bc communities and others.' (emphasis is of mine).37. in view of such authoritative pronouncement of the division bench, the contention that the division bench did not accept the law laid down by the learned single judge to the effect that 85% of the available seats in each institution are required to be reserved in favour of the local candidates is not acceptable. the learned single judge as well as the division bench clearly held that the reservations are to be made institution wise.38. however, reliance is sought to be placed by the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-university upon the judgment of this court in y.raghavendra v. ntr university of health sciences, vijayawada5. the said decision, in my considered opinion, does not deal with the question as to whether the presidential order contemplates institution-wise reservation of 85% of the available seats in favour of the local candidates. this aspect of the matter never came up for consideration before the court. the prayer in the writ petition, which is extracted in the judgment itself, would reveal the nature of the issue that had fallen for consideration before the court. the same is to the following effect:'..... may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the procedure adopted by the university authorities in making the selection and admission into the 1st year mbbs course for the academic year 1998-99 is contrary to law and illegal and consequently set aside the provisional admissions made in pursuance of the notification dated 21-11-1998 and further direct the respondent university to make the selection strictly in accordance with the principles enunciated by the supreme court in ritesh r. sah case and grant such other relief, as this hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.'39. the learned judge only dealt with that question in the said judgment. the learned judge directed to work out the details and find out how many of the students belonging to the non-reserved categories would have to be displaced if the admissions are to be made strictly in accordance with the principles laid down by the supreme court in ritesh r. sah's case : [1996]2scr695 and after arriving at the total number of such students, consider the cases of each of the writ petitioners as against the number indicated and provide admission to such of the petitioners against the above mentioned number of seats in the medical colleges after obtaining appropriate permissions from the appropriate bodies for creating such number of additional sets, only for that particular academic year. the question relating to institution-wise reservation had never fallen for consideration in y.raghavendra (5 supra). the division bench judgment in ntr university of health sciences, vijayawada v. y.raghavendra6 in toto confirmed the judgment of the learned single judge in y.raghavendra (5 supra). the division bench after an elaborate consideration of the matter concluded the issue that had fallen for consideration in the said case and observed:'all that the court can say is, if the authorities want to allow the students already admitted under open competition category allow them to prosecute their studies, at the same time comply with the orders of this court made in earlier writ proceedings. the selection shall be on the basis of local area or university-wise. if increasing of intake is necessary, the authorities may make a request to the concerned authorities to increase the intake as they did earlier or replace the less meritorious open category candidates by admitting the meritorious backward class, scheduled caste and scheduled tribe students. further, fix the meritorious bc, sc and st category students strictly adhering to the principles laid down by the supreme court in the ritesh r.shah's case : [1996]2scr695 and the rules referred above, namely, accommodate meritorious students belonging to sc, st and bcs. while so doing if the other students allotted in the oc category are to be deleted one cannot escape from the same. the petitioners are entitled by virtue of the ranking for admission under oc category to the college of their choice and they shall be admitted within two weeks from the date of this order.'40. it is thus clear that notwithstanding the observations, if any, made, the question as to whether the reservations in favour of local candidates are required to be made institution-wise had never fallen for consideration in the said case. on the other hand, the issue had directly fallen for consideration in nitesh narayan (1 supra). therefore, the decision rendered by this court in y.raghavendra (5 and 6 supra) is not a binding precedent, as it does not deal with the question about the requirement of institution-wise reservations in favour of local candidates.a word about the precedent:it is very well settled, what constitutes binding precedent is the ratio decidendi of a case. to consider the ratio decidendi of a case what is required is to ascertain the principle on which the case was decided. the house of lords in f.a. & a.b. ltd. v. lupton (inspector of taxes)7 observed: '....... what constitutes binding precedent is the ratio decidendi of a case, and this is almost always to be ascertained by an analysis of the material facts of the case - that is, generally, those facts which the tribunal whose decision is in question itself holds, expressly or implicitly, to be material.' lord halsbury in quinn v. leatham8 observed:'......every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved, or assumed to be proved, since the generality of the expressions which may be found there are not intended to be expositions of the whole law, but governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found. the other is that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides.'41. it is too fundamental and needs no reiteration in my hands that the judgments of the courts or the observations made thereon are not to be read as statutes. the observations made in setting up of facts obtained in a particular case and all such observations cannot be treated as a binding precedent.42. in y.raghavendra (6 supra) the division bench while affirming the order of the learned single judge while adverting to the question as to what relief could be granted in the facts and circumstances on hand, dealt with the same in the following manner:'it is submitted that admissions have been already over and classes have been commenced. at this juncture if any direction is given to cancel the admissions in respect of those oc category students who were admitted on the basis of their merit but less than those bc, sc and st candidates who secured higher ranks and thus entitled to be counted against open category by which process open category candidates with comparatively less merit, then great hardship would be caused to such students already admitted. in the guise of admissions already made the authorities may not escape from their liability to adhere to the rules promulgated and the law laid down. it is true that if admissions of some of the students are cancelled great hardship would be caused to them. likewise the court also has to see that by such incorrect admissions and non following the principles laid down by the supreme court in the ritesh r.shah's case : [1996]2scr695 , the other candidates coming under different reserved categories, namely bc, sc and st, who are entitled to seek admissions under open category on the basis of merit on the one hand they will be loosing their right and on the other hand such of those students coming under bc, sc and st category at the bottom who would be entitled to claim for admissions to such of the seats became vacant due to meritorious student of the bc category entitled to be admitted under open category, will now be deprived. in other words, there is no use for the reserved category student to secure higher rank. in a situation like this, all that the court can say is, if the authorities want to allow the students already admitted under open competition category allow them to prosecute their studies, at the same time comply with the orders of this court made in earlier writ proceedings. the selection shall be on the basis of local area or university-wise. if increasing of intake is necessary, the authorities may make a request to the concerned authorities to increase the intake as they did earlier or replace the less meritorious open category candidates by admitting the meritorious backward class, scheduled caste and scheduled tribe students. further, fix the meritorious bc, sc and st category students strictly adhering to the principles laid down by the supreme court in the ritesh r.shah's case : [1996]2scr695 and the rules referred above, namely, accommodate meritorious students belonging to sc, st and bcs. while so doing if the other students allotted in the oc category are to be deleted one cannot escape from the same. the petitioners are entitled by virtue of the ranking for admission under oc category to the college of their choice and they shall be admitted within two weeks from the date of this order.'43. it is thus clearly evident that the court was concerned with the admission of meritorious bc, sc and st candidates by strictly adhering to the principles laid down by the supreme court in ritesh r. shah's case (air 1996 sc 1378) and for accommodating meritorious students belonging to sc, st and bcs. it is thus clear that y.raghavendra's case (6 supra) is not an authority for the proposition as to whether the reservations in favour of local candidates are to be made institution-wise or not.44. the mutual operation and interplay of the university of health sciences act, 1986, admission rules and presidential order:it is true that the respondent-university is required to prepare a common merit list of the candidates qualified on the basis of the marks obtained in the entrance test in accordance with rule 9 of the admission rules. the admission rules do not provide or contemplate for preparation of merit list institution-wise. the merit list is a common master list. rule 10 of the admission rules itself provides that the procedure prescribed in annexure-iii to g.o.p.no.646, education, dated 10-7-1979 shall have to be followed in selecting the local candidates. therefore, the question is of selection and allotment of local candidates in accordance with the presidential order and their allotment into each of the institutions.45. it had already been noticed elsewhere in this judgment that the admission rules themselves do not provide any reservation as such in favour of the local candidates. rule 4 of the admission rules declares that admission to 85% of the seats shall be reserved in favour of the local candidates in relation to the local area as provided in the presidential order as amended from time to time. reservation in non-state wide universities and educational institutions in favour of the local candidates in relation to the local area is provided by paragraph 5 of the presidential order; it reads:'5. reservation in non-state-wide universities and educational institutions:- (1) admission to eighty-five percent of the available seats in every course of study provided by the andhra university, the nagarjuna university, the osmania university, the kakatiya university or sri venkateswara university or by any educational institution (other than a state-wide university or a state-wide educational institution) which is subject to the control of the state government shall be reserved in favour of the local candidates in relation to the local area in respect of such university or other educational institution. (2) while determining under sub-paragraph (1) the number of seats to be reserved in favour of local candidates any fraction of a seat shall be counted as one: provided that there shall be at least one unreserved seat. 46. a plain reading of paragraph 5 of the presidential order would make it clear that admission to 85% of the available seats in every course of study provided by the andhra university, the nagarjuna university, the osmania university, the kakatiya university or sri venkateswara university or by any educational institution under the control of the state government shall be reserved in favour of the local candidates. paragraph 5 of the presidential order does not speak about any university-wise reservation as such. reservation is in favour of the local candidates in relation to the local area in every course of study, whether offered by the respective universities or educational institutions under the control of the state government. the mandatory requirement is that 85% of the available seats in every course of study provided by the universities or by any educational institution under the control of the state government shall be reserved in favour of the local candidates in relation to the local area in respect of such university or other educational institution.47. let us view the problem from a different angle. in the state of andhra pradesh after the constitution of university of health sciences, which is a teaching and affiliating university, none of the other universities offer any education, training and research on the allopathic and indian systems of medicine, dentistry, pharmacy and nursing. the whole of the medical education in the state of andhra pradesh is taken over by the university of health sciences with effect from 7th april, 1986. act 6 of 1986 confers exclusive powers and functions upon the university of health sciences to formulate and maintain uniform curriculum and system of examinations for all the medical colleges in the respective systems of medicine and other institutions; to conduct a common entrance examination for all the medical colleges in the respective systems of medicine, for the selection of students etc.section 8 of the act 6 of 1986 provides for transfer of affiliation of certain colleges and institutions to the university. it declares that notwithstanding anything in the andhra university act, 1925, sri venkateswara university act, 1954, the osmania university act, 1959, the nagarjuna university act, 1976, the kakatiya university act, 1976, and sri krishnadevaraya university act, 1981, the colleges and institutions earlier affiliated to those universities be dis-affiliated from the said universities and thereupon they shall be deemed to have been affiliated to the university of health sciences.49. it would thus be clear that every institution under the control of the state government offering any course of study shall be the unit for the purposes of making 85% of the available seats reserved in favour of the local candidates. there is no dispute whatsoever that osmania, gandhi and kakatiya medical colleges are subject to the control of the state government. the conclusion, therefore, is irresistible that admission to 85% of the available seats in every course of study in favour of the local candidates shall be made institution-wise and not university-wise. the admission rules are to be read in conformity with paragraph 5 of the presidential order, since the presidential order has overriding effect notwithstanding anything contained in any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation or other order in respect of admissions to any university or to any other educational institution subject to the control of the state government. to put it plainly, the presidential order shall prevail over all the statutes, ordinances, regulations etc., in respect of admissions to any university or any other educational institution subject to the control of the state government. the admission rules have to yield to the presidential order.50. interpretation of paragraph 5 of the presidential order:the learned standing counsel submitted that if the rules are capable of two interpretations, the court should accept the long drawn process and procedure adopted by the university and should not upset the selections already made. it is submitted that the university followed the procedure of making reservations in favour of the local candidates, university-wise, for the last more than two decades and such procedure, which in vogue for a long time, should not be upset by the court. the learned standing counsel would place reliance upon the observations made by the supreme court in uma kant v. bhika lal jain9. the supreme court in the said decision observed:'it is well settled that in matters relating to educational institutions, if two interpretations are possible, the courts would ordinarily be reluctant to accept that interpretation which would upset and reverse the long course of action and decision taken by such educational authorities and would accept the interpretati8on made by such educational authorities.' 51. the submission made by the learned standing counsel is totally untenable and unsustainable for more than one reason:firstly, there is no material made available by the respondent-university in order to satisfy the court that the university followed the procedure of making 85% of reservation in the available seats in favour of the local candidates, university-wise, and not institution-wise. it would be interesting to notice that the university itself followed the institution-wise reservation in favour of the local candidates and not university-wise and stated so in the counter affidavit filed in y.raghavendra (5 supra) inter alia contending that 'reservation of 85% seats and 15% of seats have to be made in such a way the 85% of the seats in each college are filled with local candidates and the remaining 15% seats are filled with open candidates.........' therefore, the plea now taken that the university for a very long time made reservation of 85% of the available seats in every course of study in favour of the local candidates, university-wise and not institution-wise, is incorrect and devoid of any merit.secondly, the doctrine/principle of contemporanea expositio applies only to the construction of ambiguous language in old statutes. the supreme court in doypack systems pvt. ltd. v. union of india10 observed:'contemporanea expositio, is a well settled principle or doctrine which applies only to the construction of ambiguous language in old statutes. reliance may be placed in this connection on maxwell 13th edn., page 269. it is not applicable to modern statutes. reference may be made to g.p. singh, principles of statutory interpretation, 3rd edn., pages 328 and 239. as noted in maxwell on the interpretation of statutes, 12th edn., at page 269 that the leading modern case on contemporanea expositio is the case of campbell college, belfast v. commissioner of valuation for northern ireland (1946) 2 all er 705 in which house of lords has made it clear that the doctrine is to be applied only to the construction of ambiguous language in the very old statutes. it is therefore well to remember what lord watson said in clyde navigation trustees v. laird (1983) 8 ac 658 that contemporanea expositio could have no application to a modern act. we, therefore, reject the attempt on the part of the petitioners to lead us to this forbidden track by referring to various extraneous matters which we have indicated before. furthermore those external aids sought before us do not support the petitioners' approach to this question at all.'52. it is well settled that mistaken construction of the statute by the persons who dealt with the statute does not bind the court so as to prevent the court in giving to it its true construction. when the interpretation of a statutory instrument is wholly contrary to the object of the statute, merely because it had remained to be the interpretation of the administrators of the statute for a considerable length of time, the same cannot be permitted to continue to be so when it is erroneous and it is so brought to the notice of the court. this court would be failing in its duty if it did not declare an erroneous interpretation of law by the administrators of the act to be so, solely on the ground that such interpretation remained in vogue for some considerable time.53. thirdly, there is no possibility of placing any such interpretation as suggested by the learned standing counsel interpreting paragraph 5 of the presidential order providing reservation in favour of the local candidates, university-wise or region-wise. the presidential order is not susceptible to more than one interpretation. the language employed in paragraph 5 of the presidential order is clear and unambiguous and mandates to reserve 85% of available seats in every course of study in each educational institution under the control of the state government in favour of the local candidates.conclusions: for the aforesaid reasons, it is to be held that admission to 85% of the available seats in every course of study provided by every educational institution (other than a state-wide educational institution) which is subject to the control of the state government shall be reserved in favour of the local candidates in relation to local area in respect of such educational institutions. in the instant case, 85% of the available seats in post graduate medical courses are to be reserved in favour of the local candidates in each of the medical colleges, that is to say, osmania, gandhi and kakatiya medical colleges. all the three colleges/institutions cannot be grouped together for the purposes of determining the reservation of 85% of the available seats in post graduate medical courses in favour of the local candidates. the reservation is to be made each institution-wise. relief: admittedly, such a procedure has not been followed. in the circumstances, there shall be a declaration that the admissions into post graduate medical courses in osmania, gandhi and kakatiya medical colleges for the academic year 2001-2002 are void being violative of a.p. educational institutions (regulation of admissions) order, 1974. consequently, there shall be a direction to the respondent university to make admissions in accordance with the presidential order duly reserving 85% of the available seats in post graduate medical courses in each medical college in osmania university and kakatiya university area. the admissions shall accordingly be redone. a writ of mandamus shall accordingly be issued.54. it is, however, conceded that the admission of respondent no.3 already made shall in no manner be affected on account of this direction.55. the writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. there shall be no order as to costs.
Judgment:1. The writ petitioners - four in number invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ 'to set aside the admission into Post Graduate Medical Courses in Osmania/Kakatiya Area Medical colleges for the academic year 2001-2002 as violative of A.P. Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions) Order, 1974; and consequently direct the respondent-University to make admissions in accordance with the A.P. Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions) Order, 1974 duly reserving 85% of the seats in the each college in Osmania University and Kakatiya University area Medical Colleges for the academic year 2001-2002.....'
2. Before adverting to the question as to whether the issue requires any interference of this court in the matter of admissions already made by the Post Graduate Selection Committee 2001-2002, the relevant facts perhaps in detail may have to be noticed:Factual Matrix:
Pleadings of the petitioners: The petitioners specifically challenge the action of the respondent University in providing seats in the Post Graduate Medical Courses in 'un-reserved quota' only in Osmania Medical College. According to the petitioners such providing of seats only in one particular college is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Presidential Orders.
3. The petitioners have passed M.B.B.S. Courses and qualified for taking admission into P.G. Medical Courses. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences (for short 'the respondent-university') has issued a notification dated 26-7-2001 notifying admissions into Post Graduate Medical Courses in the medical colleges affiliated to the respondent-university for the academic year 2001-2002. The petitioners herein have applied for admission into Post Graduate Medical Courses pursuant to the said notification. The entrance examination was held on 12-9-2001. The results were duly announced on 18-9-2001. The Hall Ticket Numbers and rank secured by each of the petitioners are as follows:
Sl. No.
Petitioner's name
Hall Ticket
Number
Rank
1.
Dr. A.Rajakaran Reddy
018534
61
2.
Dr. M.Ashwani Kumar
018081
09
3.
Dr. M.Srinivas Reddy
018792
89
4.
Dr. G.Sunil Kumar
01840
104
4. The petitioners claim that each one of them is eligible and entitled to get a seat in the faculty of their choice in Osmania Medical College. On account of the illegal procedure adopted by the respondent-University they were deprived of their legitimate right to get seats in Osmania Medical College. However, they have been given provisional selection as follows:
Sl.
No.
Petitioner's name
Course offered
Name of
College
1.
Dr. A.Rajakaran Reddy
M.S. (General)
Kakatiya Medical College Warangal
2.
Dr. M.Ashwani Kumar
M.S. (Ortho.)
Gandhi Medi-
Cal College
3.
Dr. M.Srinivas Reddy
M.D. (Anat)
Osmania Medi-
Cal College
4.
Dr. G.Sunil Kumar
Diploma in
Child Health
(DCH)
Osmania Medi-
Cal College
5. There is no dispute whatsoever that all the petitioners herein belong to the Osmania University 'local area'.
6. It is further stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that in Osmania University local area there are three colleges, viz., Osmania Medical College, Gandhi Medical College both situated in Hyderabad and Kakatiya Medical College at Warangal where the P.G. Courses are being offered. In the Medical group there are 29 seats available in Osmania Medical College; 14 seats in Gandhi Medical College and 12 seats in Kakatiya Medical College, Warangal. In all, put together there are 55 seats. Similarly in Surgical group there are 21 seats available in Osmania Medical College, 11 seats in Gandhi Medical College and 12 seats in Kakatiya Medical College.
7. It is an admitted fact that the admissions into 85% of available seats are reserved in favour of local candidates in relation to local area as provided in the A.P. Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions) Order, 1974 (for short 'the Presidential Order').
8. It is stated that out of 55 seats that are available in the Medical Group in the Osmania University local area spread over in three colleges referred to hereinabove, 10 seats are earmarked as unreserved, wherein both the local and non-local candidates would be entitled to seek admission on merit.
9. It is alleged that all the unreserved seats in Medical Group as well as in Surgical Group courses at Post Graduate level are being accommodated in the Osmania Medical College only. The petitioners give the details of the candidates admitted in Osmania Medical College under the unreserved quota as follows:
Sl.No.
Rank
Branch
01
01
M.D. (RD)
02
02
M.D. (General Medicine) Miss.Nagasree
03
03
M.D. (General Medicine)
04
05
M.S. (Ortho)
05
11
M.D. (O&G;)
06
12
M.D. (Ped.)
07
14
M.D. (Ped.)
08
28
M.S. (Gen. Sur.)
09
32
M.S. (Gen. Sur.)
10
53
M.S. (ENT)
11
66
M.S. (Ortho)
12
83
M.D. (T.B.)
13
99
M.D. (Anans)
10. That on account of the procedure adopted by the respondent-University, the percentage of reservation made in favour of the local candidates is reduced to less than 85% of available seats. It is stated that out of 50 seats available in Osmania Medical College13 candidates belong to unreserved quota are admitted, which amounts to 26% of the total available seats. The seats made available to the local candidates are reduced to 74% from that of 85% of seats reserved in favour of local candidates. It is thus contended that the procedure adopted by the respondent-University in filling up of the seats in Osmania Medical College has resulted in violation of the Presidential Order.
11. It is further stated that the admission into the Post Graduate Medical Courses is governed by Act 5 of 1983. Section 3 (2) of Act 5 of 1983 mandates that admission into the Educational Institutions shall be made by the government in accordance with the Presidential Order. The rules notified in G.O.Ms.No.260, Health, Medical & Family Welfare (E2) Department, dated 10-7-1997 prescribe that the rule of reservation shall be as provided in the Presidential Order.
12. Precisely, it is the case of the petitioners that in Osmania University local area, there are three institutions and the unreserved seats are to be distributed equally among all the three institutions. Instead, the unreserved seats are being filled up only in one institution i.e., Osmania Medical College. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent-University is required to make admissions duly reserving 85% of available seats to local candidates, institution-wise, subject to the community reservation and other non-statutory reservations. It is the claim of the petitioners that 85% of available seats in each institution are required to be reserved in favour of the local candidates.
13. The petitioners rely upon the judgments in Nitesh Narayan V. University of Health Sciences and another1 rendered by a learned Single Judge and P.Chinnayya V. Nitesh Narayan2 rendered by a Division Bench of this court.University's case:
In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-university, it is inter alia stated that the question that falls for consideration in the instant writ petition is not res integra but squarely covered by the judgments of this court rendered in W.P.No.33456 of 1998 and batch, dated 20-4-1999 and W.A.No.1547 of 1997 and batch, dated 17-7-1998. According to the averments made in the counter affidavit, the Division Bench had finally held that the selections to MBBS Course shall be made local area/university area wise only. 'The concept of maintaining institution wise has totally disappeared.' Reliance is sought to be placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this court in W.A.No.795 of 1999 and batch, dated 23-2-2000.
The crux of the case and the defence of the respondent-University is evident from the averments made in paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit, which is to the following effect: 'It is humbly submitted that the Presidential Order, 1974 do not anywhere specifies that the selections shall be made institution wise or the unreserved seats available in the University area shall be distributed within the colleges located in University local area. The Presidential Order clearly mandates that the admissions shall be made on the basis of the available seats in every course of study. It is humbly submitted that the available seats in Osmania Medical College, Gandhi Medical College and Kakatiya Medical College along with the unreserved seats with their eligibility and fraction is worked out in G.O.Ms.No.4 enclosed to the Counter Affidavit. The contents of the G.O. may be read as part and parcel of this counter affidavit.'
14. In the counter affidavit it is further stated that the request made by the petitioners before this court is contrary to the long drawn procedure and is unworkable. The available seats in Osmania Medical College are more in number than the available seats in other two medical colleges are put together and as such the petitioners are not justified in insisting that the unreserved seats shall be equally distributed to the three medical colleges located in the local area in ratio of 85:15. It is submitted that except in General Medicine, General Surgery Courses there is no possibility of providing any seat in Gandhi or Kakatiya medical colleges in favour of unreserved categories.
15. It is submitted that the same procedure as is followed for this academic year is being followed by the respondent-university for the last more than two decades and the same cannot be interfered with and interdicted at this stage by this court. The admissions already made cannot be interfered with. It is submitted that if the rules are susceptible to more than one interpretation, the court would accept such interpretation as the one placed by the authorities so that the long drawn practice in vogue may not be upset. It is further submitted that the selections shall be made course wise in each group of the subjects mentioned and there is no provision for adding medicine, surgery, obstetrics, gynecology and non-clinical subjects and calculate the percentage of seats in favour of local and unreserved candidates. The suggested procedure is contrary to the rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.260, which are statutory rules. The selections, allotment and admissions made by the respondent-University are in accordance with the statutory rules.
16. Rest of the averments made in the counter affidavit perhaps need not be noticed as they do not have any bearing on the question that falls for consideration and the issue requiring resolution by this court. Some of the averments made in the counter affidavit are totally irrelevant. The court is left with a feeling that such unnecessary averments are made in the counter affidavit in order to confuse the issue and in order to complicate the question that falls for consideration.
Pleadings of the contesting respondents:
In the counter affidavit filed by the contesting respondents, it is inter alia stated that the petitioners are not directly affected by the admissions already made. The petitioners would not derive any direct benefit even if the writ petition is allowed. Rest of the allegations made in the counter affidavit filed by the contesting respondents may not be strictly relevant. In nutshell, it is the contention of the contesting respondents that their admission is within and among the unreserved seats and as such their admission does not violate the Presidential Order. The respondents are non-local candidates and it is conceded that they are eligible only to compete for the seats kept unreserved. The rest of the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the contesting respondents are more argumentative in nature rather than pleadings. The submissions made by the learned counsel on their behalf would be referred and dealt with appropriately.
17. The simple but important question that arises for consideration in this writ petition relates to the method of implementation of the rule of reservation in favour of local candidates in the matter of admission to Post Graduate Medical courses, in the medical colleges in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
Special Constitutional Provisions with respect to the State of Andhra Pradesh and background thereof:
Article 371D of the Constitution of India makes special provisions in the matter of admissions to educational institutions and public employment with respect to the State of Andhra Pradesh. The said provision is inserted by the Constitution (Thirty-second Amendment) Act, 1973 with effect from 1-7-1974. The objects and reasons of the Constitution (Thirty-second Amendment) Act, 1973 may be noted in order to know the background as to the insertion of Article 371D of the Constitution of India:
'When the State of Andhra Pradesh was formed in 1956, certain safeguards were envisaged for the Telegana area in the matter of development and also in the matter of employment opportunities and educational facilities for the residents of that area. The provisions of clause (1) of article 371 of the Constitution were intended to give effect to certain features of these safeguards. The Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Act, 1957, was enacted, inter alia, to provide for employment opportunities for residents of Telegana area. But in 1969, the Supreme Court held the relevant provision of the Act to be unconstitutional in so far as it related to the safeguards envisaged for the Telegana area. Owing to a variety of causes, the working of the safeguards gave rise to a certain amount of dissatisfaction sometimes in the Telegana area and sometimes in the other areas of the State. Measures were devised from time to time to resolve the problems. During 1973, several leaders of Andhra Pradesh made a concerted effort to analyse the factors which had been giving rise to the dissatisfaction and find enduring answers to the problems with a view to achieving fuller emotional integration of the people of Andhra Pradesh. On the 21st September, 1973, they suggested certain measures (generally known as the Six-Point Formula) indicating a uniform approach for promoting accelerated development of the backward areas of the State so as to secure the balanced development of the State as a whole and for providing equitable opportunities to different areas of the State in the matter of education, employment and career prospects in public services. This formula received wide support in Andhra Pradesh and was endorsed by the State Government.
The present Act provides the necessary constitutional authority for giving effect to the to the Six-Point Formula in so far as it relates to the provision of equitable opportunities for people of different areas of the State in the matter of admission to educational institutions and public employment. The Act provides, inter alia, for the constitution of an Administrative Tribunal to deal with certain disputes and grievances relating to public services. It also empowers Parliament to legislate for establishing a Central University in the State and contains provisions for the validation of certain appointments made in the past. As the Six-Point Formula provides for the discontinuance of the Regional Committees constituted under clause (1) of article 371 of the Constitution, the Act also provides for the repeal of that clause.'
18. The underlying object of Article 371D of the Constitution of India and the Presidential Order has been noticed by a Full Bench of this court in B.Sudhakar, Dr. v. Union of India3. The Full Bench observed:
'The scheme contained in paragraph 5 of the Presidential Order is to reserve 85% of the available seats for the candidates of each local area and leave the balance 15% as unreserved. In the light of the historical background in which Articles 371-D and 371E were inserted in the Constitution and the Presidential Order came to be made, it would be reasonable to assume that the Order protects the interest of local candidates of each of the three local areas treating each local area as a Unit - and thus provides equal opportunities to the candidates of the State as a whole which is both in consonance with public interest as well as in accordance with the requirement of providing equitable opportunities and facilities for the people belonging to different parts of the State which is the mandate of Article 371-D. We cannot so construe the provisions of paragraph 5 as to frustrate or defeat the very purpose of the Presidential Order. Now let us elaborate this position. For purposes of paragraph 5, if there is one available seat in each of the three local areas and according to the contention of the petitioner each seat is treated as unreserved, candidates of one local area having better rank in entrance examination will secure admission and no seat will be available for candidates of other two local areas. This, in our view, will perpetuate the mischief which was sought to be remedied and thus frustrate the object of the Presidential Order.
There can be no doubt that reservation is anathema to merit in the matter of admission to courses of studies in which there is stiff competition as that alone satisfies the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution. But just as inequality among equals results in denial of equal opportunities, so also, equality among unequals results in denial of equal opportunities and the concept of equal protection of law becomes a mere concept of philosophy with no practical significance. Therefore, in the interest of the community as a whole, for balancing interests of various groups, categories and regions and for providing equitable opportunities and facilities for the people of different parts of the State to achieve satisfaction of public at large, reservation has to be accepted as a necessary factor, be it on caste basis or regional basis or any other rational basis. This is the underlying object of Article 371-D and the Presidential Order.'
Sub-clause (b) of clause (2) of Article 371-D of the Constitution of India empowers the President to specify any part or parts of the State which shall be regarded as the 'local area', inter alia, for the purposes of admission to any University within the State or to any other educational institution which is subject to the control of the State Government; while sub-clause (c) empowers him to specify the extent to which, the manner in which and the conditions subject to which, preference or reservation shall be given or made inter alia in the matter of admission to any such University or other educational institution referred to in sub-clause (b), in favour of candidates who have resided or studied for any period specified in the order in the local area in respect of such University or other educational institution, as the case may be. The President in exercise of the powers conferred in clauses (1) and (2) of Article 371D of the Constitution of India made and issued the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions) Order, 1974 which came into force with effect from 1st July, 1974.
19. Paragraph 2 of the said Presidential Order defines several expressions including the 'local area', 'local candidate', 'State-wide educational institution', 'State-wide University'. Paragraph 3 specifies three local areas into which the entire State of Andhra Pradesh is divided. Paragraph 4 notifies the conditions, which are required to be satisfied before one can be treated as a local candidate. Explanation to paragraph 4 defines 'educational institution' for the purpose of paragraph 4 and according to the explanation 'educational institution' means a University or any educational institution recognised by the State Government, a University or other competent authority. Paragraph 5 provides for reservation in favour of local candidates in non-State-wide Universities and educational institutions. According to paragraph 5 (1), admission to 85% of the available seats in every course of study provided by the Andhra University, the Nagarjuna University, the Osmania University, the Kakatiya University or Sri Venkateswara University or by any educational institution (other than a State-wide University or a State-wide Educational Institution) which is subject to the control of the State Government shall be reserved in favour of the local candidates in relation to the local area in respect of such University or other educational institution.
20. The State-wide Universities are mentioned in the schedule to the Presidential Order. The Medical Colleges in the State of Andhra Pradesh are not among those notified in the Schedule. Therefore, they are not the State-wide institutions.
21. A plain reading of those paragraphs would make it clear that 85% of the available seats in every course of study provided by the respective Universities or by any educational institution (other than a State-wide University or a State-wide Educational Institution) which is subject to the control of the State Government shall be reserved in favour of the local candidates in relation to the local area in respect of such University or other educational institution.
22. It is clear and about which there is no dispute whatsoever that the local candidates are also eligible to apply for admission into 15% of unreserved seats, besides being exclusively eligible for admission against the seats reserved for them. The local candidates are not ineligible for competing or for claiming seats from out of 15% unreserved seats. The reservation of 85% seats made in favour of the local candidates is the minimum. The non-local candidates are not eligible for competing for and in any manner entitled to intrude into the 85% of the available seats in every course of study reserved in favour of the local candidates. It is exclusively meant for the local candidates in relation to local area in respect of such University or other educational institution under the control of the State Government. In a given case and situation all the 15% unreserved seats may also be filled in by the local candidates provided they become eligible on the basis of their merit; and further provided there shall be at least one unreserved seat.
23. It has to be borne in mind that paragraph 9 of the Presidential Order gives an overriding effect as it declares that the provisions of the Presidential Order shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation or other order (whether made before or after the commencement of the Presidential Order) in respect of admissions to any University or to any other educational institution subject to control of the State Government. This aspect of the matter would be dealt with appropriately while considering the mutual operation and interaction of various Acts, admission rules and the Presidential Order and the instructions of the State Government issued to give effect to the Presidential Order.
24. Statutory Rules regulating admissions:
The Government of Andhra Pradesh in exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 read with sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 (A.P. Act No.5 of 1983) and in supersession of all the rules in force governing the admissions into Post Graduate Courses made the rules for admission into the Post Graduate Medical Courses in the State of Andhra Pradesh known as 'The Andhra Pradesh Medical Colleges (Admission into Post Graduate Medical Courses) Rules, 1997 (for short 'the Admission Rules').
Rule 2 of the Admission Rules mandates the University of Health Sciences to notify the number of seats in Post Graduate Degree and Diploma Courses in the various disciplines in each Medical College and not in any University. This is very significant. Rule 4 in its turn says that admission to 85% of the seats shall be reserved in favour of the local candidates in relation to the local area as provided in the Presidential Order as amended from time to time. Clause (B) of Rule 4 specifies the 'local area'. The expression 'educational institution' is again defined in Explanation to Rule 4. 'Educational Institution' means a University or any Educational Institution recognised by the State Government, a University or any other competent authority. Rule 10 of the Admission Rules provides the procedure for selections. In the note (b) to Rule 10 of the Admission Rules, it is clearly stated that the procedure indicated in Annexure-III to G.O.P.No.646, Education, dt.10-7-1979 shall be followed in selecting the local candidates.
25. It is required to notice that the definition of 'local candidate', 'local area' and 'educational institution' is the same as in the Presidential Order. In fact, Rule 4 of the Admission Rules clearly says that the reservation in favour of the local candidates shall be made as provided in the Presidential Order. It is thus clear that the Admission Rules are to be read so as to be in conformity with the Presidential Order and comprehensive instructions in G.O.P.No.646, Education, dated 10-7-1979 issued in pursuance of paragraph 8 of the Presidential Order. The admissions into Post Graduate medical courses in the State of Andhra Pradesh are governed not only by the Admission Rules, but also by the Presidential Order and the instructions issued by the Government aforesaid. According to clause (10) of Article 371D of the Constitution of India, the provisions of the said Article and of any order made by the President there under shall have effect notwithstanding anything in any other provision of the Constitution or in any other law for the time being in force. Thus, the Admission Rules providing the rules governing the admission into Post Graduate Courses are to be read to be in conformity with the Presidential Order and the instructions issued by the Government contained in G.O.P.No.646, Education, dated 10-7-1979. The Presidential Order prevails over any other law to the extent of inconsistencies. We have already noticed paragraph 9 of the Presidential Order which expressly gives an overriding effect to the Presidential Order, and in particular, in the matter of admissions to any University or to any other educational institution subject to control of the State Government. We shall bear in mind this background of the Presidential Order, instructions issued in G.O.P.No.646, dated 10-7-1979 and the Admission Rules to consider the question that falls for consideration of the court.
26. Sri G.Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that admissions to 85% of the available seats in Post Graduate Degree and Diploma Courses in each medical college are required to be reserved in favour of the local candidates. Each educational institution offering Post Graduate Degree and Diploma Course is to be taken as a unit for the purposes of providing 85% of the available seats reserved in favour of the local candidates.
27. Sri K.G.K. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-university contends that the Presidential Order does not specify that the selections shall be made institution-wise. It is contended that the Presidential Order does not mandate that the unreserved seats available in the University area shall be distributed within the colleges located in the University local area. It is further contended that the Presidential Order clearly mandates that the admissions shall be made on the basis of available seats in every course of study.
28. Sri C.Kodandaram, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents advances similar contention and further contends that the Presidential Order itself is made to rectify the regional imbalances and the selection of the candidates by making reservation of 85% of seats University-wise would be perfectly in conformity with the Presidential Order. Institution-wise reservation is not contemplated by the Presidential Order.
29. At the outset, it is required to notice that the Admission Rules by themselves do not provide reservation in favour of local candidates in relation to local area. The Admission Rules merely recognise the right of reservation to the extent of 85% of the seats in favour of the local candidates. The reservation in favour of local candidates is a constitutional mandate. Such reservations are provided in the Presidential Order. The Presidential Order itself is promulgated pursuant to the constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 371-D of the Constitution of India. The Admission Rules, therefore, are required to be read in conformity with the Presidential Order. In case of any inconsistencies between the Presidential Order and the Admission Rules, obviously the Presidential Order shall prevail. The Admission Rules have to yield to the Presidential Order. This position is clearly clarified by this court in Padmanabha Reddy v. State of A.P.4
30. Paragraph 5 of the Presidential Order provides for reservation of 85% of the available seats in every course of study offered by the Universities or any educational institution, which is under the control of the State Government in favour of the local candidates. It does not speak about the university-wise reservations. It speaks about the admission to 85% of the available seats in every course of study provided by the Universities and educational institutions.
31. Now let us consider whether the Admission Rules provide institution-wise or university-wise area reservation and whether the reservations so made are in conformity with the Presidential Order. Rule 9 of the Admission Rules relates to preparation of merit lists. Rule 10 provides the procedure of selections. The said Rules are re-produced:
9. Merit Lists:- (i) The examination board constituted by the NTR University of Health Sciences shall get the entrance test papers valued either manually or mechanically and prepare a common Master Merit list of the candidates qualified on the basis of marks obtained in the entrance test subject to sub-rule (ii). The marks of the candidates in order of merit and in order of Hall ticket numbers will be displayed on the notice boards of the colleges and in the office of the NTR University of Health Sciences.
(ii) In case of equality of marks in the entrance test, the total percentage of marks in MBBS excluding Pre-professional course Non-Medical subjects of 1st year integrated MBBS course up to 2 decimal places shall be taken into consideration for fixing the merit of the candidates. If the entrance test marks and MBBS marks are equal, marks obtained in the concerned subject in MBBS shall be taken into consideration if the candidates opt for the same subject.
(iii) Any candidate who wishes to have re-totalling of marks should pay a fee specified by the UHS to enable the University to verify the same. Such application shall be submitted within 5 days after announcement of the results to the Registrar, University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada.
10. Selections:- (i) Provisional selection shall be made by the Selection Committee constituted by the University of Health Sciences subject to these rules.
(ii) The University of Health Sciences will announce the dates and centre or centres at which selections will be made.
(iii) The selection committee shall display the charts showing the allocation of seats to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes in the Medical Colleges of the University area, local area wise at the time of selections.
(iv) On the dates notified the candidates shall be called in order of merit by the selection committees and ask them to opt for subject of the candidates choice in the then available subjects in the college. The selection committee will issue the selection order immediately. The selection will be made only from among the candidates who physically present themselves when their hall ticket numbers are called out in order of merit.
(v) (a) Claims of the candidates will not be considered if they are absent when called at the time of selection and the next in the merit would be selected. The selected candidate shall submit the original certificates to the selection committee and pay fees immediately at the counters available at the centre.
The candidates shall submit required bond on or before the date fixed for the same.
(b) If a candidate after choosing the subject fails to pay the fees or after paying the fees fails to submit the bond the selection of such candidate stands cancelled automatically.
(c) The candidates shall be called to appear before the selection committee one after the other and they shall not enter the selection committee room in groups.
(d) Any person who obstructs the proceedings of the selection committee or otherwise misbehaves or causes disturbance at the selection committee meetings and obstructs or causes obstruction to its peaceful functioning shall be liable for such disciplinary action as may be taken by the University.
(e) Candidates shall be present till the end of the selections and be available in case if they are recalled for any reasons.
N.B. (a) The procedure envisaged in G.O.Ms.No.996, E & S.W. Department, dt.11-11-75 will be followed in selecting the candidates.
(b) Procedure indicated in Annexure-III to G.O.P.No.646, Education, dt.10-7-79 shall be followed in selecting the local candidates.
(vi) (a) Vacancies after the 1st selection shall be displayed on the date notified in all the Medical Colleges. These vacancies shall be filled by the Selection Committee on the dates at the centres to be notified by the University as per merit, subject to these rules.
(b) Resultant vacancies will be open to all the candidates with ranks below the rank of the candidate who vacated the seat for that speciality, in that area and also those candidates who were absent in the earlier selections.
(vii) The Selection Committee shall have power to review the provisional selection in case of an admissions be should mis-representation, fraud or gross injustice. In all matters relating to the selections and admissions the decision of the Selection Committee shall be final and binding on the candidates and selection should not be questioned after closure of admissions.
(viii) The vacant seats in non-clinical subjects pre and para-clinical subjects at the end of each selection in each region shall be filed from among the applicants who are in service candidates who have applied through their respective heads of departments on a separate proforma, available at University of Health Sciences in advance to the Registrar, University of Health Sciences. The selections shall be done on the basis of merit basing on MBBS marks. These applicants need not appear to the Post Graduate Medical Entrance Test. The candidates so selected in Non-Clinical subjects Pre and Para-Clinical subjects shall submit an undertaking that the candidate shall serve the Government for a period of 10 years and execute bond to the effect that in default an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) shall be paid by the candidate to the Government of A.P.
32. The above rules read with Rule 4, which we have already adverted to, would make it clear that 85% of seats in favour of the candidates in each course shall be reserved and the admissions shall accordingly be made. The reservation has to be made institution wise. This is the view taken by a learned single Judge of this court in Nitesh Narayan (1 supra). In the said judgment it is held:
'While Rule 5 of the Presidential Order aims at admission of local candidates to the extent of 85% of the available seats in every course of study provided by the University or any Educational Institution which is subject to the control of the State Government, even in Rule 8 (1) of the Admission Rules, it is clearly mentioned that 85% seats in each course shall be reserved for local candidates. Further in Rule 8 (2), the reservations are provided in each course in each institution for SC/ST/BC, Women etc. This indicates that the reservation has to be made institution-wise. If the reservation is to be made on the basis of University area wise, it would not conform to the percentage of seats exclusively reserved for locals. On the other hand, if 85% of the seats are to be filled up exclusively by the local candidates in each institution subject to the reservations made by the State Government for SC, ST, BC etc., the imbalance would not persist. Therefore, the only inevitable interpretation that can be drawn in Para 5 of the Presidential Order and also Rule 8 of the Admission Rules is that 85% of the available seats should be reserved in each course and in each institution, in other words, the order and the Rules aim at institution-wise reservations and not university area wise. That is why, in Para 5 of the Presidential Order, it specifically refers to the available seats in every course of study provided by the Educational Institutions. Similarly, in Rule 8 (2) of the Admission Rules, it is mentioned that so and so percentage of seats in each course in each institution shall be reserved for candidates belonging to various communities. Thus, I hold that in each institution, in the instant case, in each Medical College offering M.B.B.S., Course, 85% of the seats shall be reserved for locals subject to community and other reservations and 15% of the seats shall be left open. Admittedly, in the instant case, the Health University did not follow this process by earmarking 85% and 15% to locals and non-locals but filled up the seats exclusively reserved for local candidates by the candidates falling under the un-reserved category. Thus, the action of the Health University is in contravention of the Presidential Order and the Rule 8 of the Admission Rules.'
33. A Division Bench of this court confirmed the above view of the learned Single Judge in P.Chinnayya (2 supra), wherein it is observed:
'In the light of the above, we are unable to persuade ourselves to approve the conclusion of the learned single Judge that the reservation of seats on University Area-wise is not contemplated either under the Presidential Order or the EAMCET Rules. We, accordingly, set aside the same. However, we make it clear that this conclusion of ours should not be understood as if the institution/college-wise reservation is prohibited. As already noted above, the learned Counsel for the appellants and the petitioners have no objection to reserve 85% of the seats to local candidates and the remaining 15% of the seats to unreserved candidates in each institution/college subject to observance of the procedure contemplated under Rules 6, 7 and 8 of the EAMCET Rules. We also feel that institution-wise/college-wise reservation as directed by the learned single Judge in direction No.3 is possible or even mandatory while maintaining the region-wise or University area-wise reservation as contemplated under the Presidential Order or the EAMCET Rules.' (Emphasis is of mine).
34. The principle is reiterated by the Division Bench in paragraph 3 of the operative portion of the said Judgment, which is to the following effect:
'The Selection Committee or the competent authority shall, while allotting the candidates from out of the lists prepared as per Rule 6 (1) (b), (d) and (e) to each individual college, see that 85% of the seats in such college are filled with local candidates and the remaining 15% unreserved seats with open candidates, maintaining the rules of reservation for SC, ST and BC communities and other reserved categories specified in clause (b) of sub-rule (4) of Rule 8 both in respect of local candidates as well as open candidates.' (Emphasis is of mine).
35. However, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-University and the learned counsel for the contesting respondents would place reliance upon certain observations made by the Division Bench in paragraph 14 of the said judgment, which are to the following effect:
'It is evident from the above that categorisation of local candidates has been made with reference to the educational institution where the candidate has studied and the local area where such educational institution is situate. Thus, on a combined reading of the provisions of paragraph 3, 4 and 5 of the Presidential Order, we are of the clear view that paragraph 5 contemplates reservation of 85% of the available seats in every course on local area wise or University area-wise and not institution/college-wise. This is how the Government also understood the mode of reservation contemplated under paragraphs 5 and 6 and the same is evident from G.O.Ms.No.749 Education, Educational Department dated 24-8-1974 where under instructions were issued regarding the manner of selection of local candidates.'
36. In my considered opinion, the observations so made by the Division Bench are not the authority for the proposition that 85% of the available seats in every course of study are to be reserved in favour of the local candidates, university-wise, and not institution-wise. The observations made in paragraph 14 are to be read along with the paragraph 17 and operative portion of the judgment referred to hereinabove. If so read, the ratio of the judgment would be absolutely clear. In the same judgment, it is further observed by the court in clear terms:
'It becomes imperative to allot local candidates and open candidates to each individual college proportionate to the number of seats available in such individual college. In other words, at the stage of allotting the candidates from out of the lists prepared as per Rule 6 (1) (b), (d) and (e) to each individual college it is mandatory that the selection committee or the competent authority shall see that 85% of the seats in such college are filled with local candidates and the remaining 15% unreserved seats with open candidates subject to observance of rules of reservations for S.C., S.T., and B.C., communities and other reserved categories specified in clause (b) of sub-rule (4) of Rule 8. We are, thus, of the considered view that such procedure alone would be just and proper for filling up seats in each individual college and any other mode would result in breach of rules regulating region-wise reservation of seats as well as the rules governing the reservation of SC, ST, and BC communities and others.' (Emphasis is of mine).
37. In view of such authoritative pronouncement of the Division Bench, the contention that the Division Bench did not accept the law laid down by the learned single Judge to the effect that 85% of the available seats in each institution are required to be reserved in favour of the local candidates is not acceptable. The learned single Judge as well as the Division Bench clearly held that the reservations are to be made institution wise.
38. However, reliance is sought to be placed by the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-University upon the judgment of this court in Y.Raghavendra V. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada5. The said decision, in my considered opinion, does not deal with the question as to whether the Presidential Order contemplates institution-wise reservation of 85% of the available seats in favour of the local candidates. This aspect of the matter never came up for consideration before the court. The prayer in the writ petition, which is extracted in the judgment itself, would reveal the nature of the issue that had fallen for consideration before the court. The same is to the following effect:
'..... may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the procedure adopted by the University authorities in making the selection and admission into the 1st year MBBS Course for the academic year 1998-99 is contrary to law and illegal and consequently set aside the provisional admissions made in pursuance of the Notification dated 21-11-1998 and further direct the respondent University to make the selection strictly in accordance with the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Ritesh R. Sah case and grant such other relief, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.'
39. The learned Judge only dealt with that question in the said judgment. The learned Judge directed to work out the details and find out how many of the students belonging to the non-reserved categories would have to be displaced if the admissions are to be made strictly in accordance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Ritesh R. Sah's case : [1996]2SCR695 and after arriving at the total number of such students, consider the cases of each of the writ petitioners as against the number indicated and provide admission to such of the petitioners against the above mentioned number of seats in the Medical Colleges after obtaining appropriate permissions from the appropriate bodies for creating such number of additional sets, only for that particular academic year. The question relating to institution-wise reservation had never fallen for consideration in Y.Raghavendra (5 supra). The Division Bench Judgment in NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada v. Y.Raghavendra6 in toto confirmed the judgment of the learned single Judge in Y.Raghavendra (5 supra). The Division Bench after an elaborate consideration of the matter concluded the issue that had fallen for consideration in the said case and observed:
'All that the Court can say is, if the authorities want to allow the students already admitted under open competition category allow them to prosecute their studies, at the same time comply with the orders of this Court made in earlier writ proceedings. The selection shall be on the basis of local area or University-wise. If increasing of intake is necessary, the authorities may make a request to the concerned authorities to increase the intake as they did earlier or replace the less meritorious open category candidates by admitting the meritorious Backward Class, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe students. Further, fix the meritorious BC, SC and ST category students strictly adhering to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the Ritesh R.Shah's case : [1996]2SCR695 and the rules referred above, namely, accommodate meritorious students belonging to SC, ST and BCs. While so doing if the other students allotted in the OC category are to be deleted one cannot escape from the same. The petitioners are entitled by virtue of the ranking for admission under OC category to the college of their choice and they shall be admitted within two weeks from the date of this order.'
40. It is thus clear that notwithstanding the observations, if any, made, the question as to whether the reservations in favour of local candidates are required to be made institution-wise had never fallen for consideration in the said case. On the other hand, the issue had directly fallen for consideration in Nitesh Narayan (1 supra). Therefore, the decision rendered by this court in Y.Raghavendra (5 and 6 supra) is not a binding precedent, as it does not deal with the question about the requirement of institution-wise reservations in favour of local candidates.A word about the precedent:
It is very well settled, what constitutes binding precedent is the ratio decidendi of a case. To consider the ratio decidendi of a case what is required is to ascertain the principle on which the case was decided. The House of Lords in F.A. & A.B. Ltd. V. Lupton (Inspector of Taxes)7 observed: '....... what constitutes binding precedent is the ratio decidendi of a case, and this is almost always to be ascertained by an analysis of the material facts of the case - that is, generally, those facts which the tribunal whose decision is in question itself holds, expressly or implicitly, to be material.'
Lord Halsbury in Quinn V. Leatham8 observed:
'......every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved, or assumed to be proved, since the generality of the expressions which may be found there are not intended to be expositions of the whole law, but governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found. The other is that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides.'
41. It is too fundamental and needs no reiteration in my hands that the judgments of the courts or the observations made thereon are not to be read as statutes. The observations made in setting up of facts obtained in a particular case and all such observations cannot be treated as a binding precedent.
42. In Y.Raghavendra (6 supra) the Division Bench while affirming the order of the learned single Judge while adverting to the question as to what relief could be granted in the facts and circumstances on hand, dealt with the same in the following manner:
'It is submitted that admissions have been already over and classes have been commenced. At this juncture if any direction is given to cancel the admissions in respect of those OC category students who were admitted on the basis of their merit but less than those BC, SC and ST candidates who secured higher ranks and thus entitled to be counted against open category by which process open category candidates with comparatively less merit, then great hardship would be caused to such students already admitted. In the guise of admissions already made the authorities may not escape from their liability to adhere to the rules promulgated and the law laid down. It is true that if admissions of some of the students are cancelled great hardship would be caused to them. Likewise the Court also has to see that by such incorrect admissions and non following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the Ritesh R.Shah's case : [1996]2SCR695 , the other candidates coming under different reserved categories, namely BC, SC and ST, who are entitled to seek admissions under open category on the basis of merit on the one hand they will be loosing their right and on the other hand such of those students coming under BC, SC and ST category at the bottom who would be entitled to claim for admissions to such of the seats became vacant due to meritorious student of the BC category entitled to be admitted under open category, will now be deprived. In other words, there is no use for the reserved category student to secure higher rank. In a situation like this, all that the Court can say is, if the authorities want to allow the students already admitted under open competition category allow them to prosecute their studies, at the same time comply with the orders of this Court made in earlier writ proceedings. The selection shall be on the basis of local area or University-wise. If increasing of intake is necessary, the authorities may make a request to the concerned authorities to increase the intake as they did earlier or replace the less meritorious open category candidates by admitting the meritorious Backward Class, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe students. Further, fix the meritorious BC, SC and ST category students strictly adhering to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the Ritesh R.Shah's case : [1996]2SCR695 and the rules referred above, namely, accommodate meritorious students belonging to SC, ST and BCs. While so doing if the other students allotted in the OC category are to be deleted one cannot escape from the same. The petitioners are entitled by virtue of the ranking for admission under OC category to the college of their choice and they shall be admitted within two weeks from the date of this order.'
43. It is thus clearly evident that the court was concerned with the admission of meritorious BC, SC and ST candidates by strictly adhering to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Ritesh R. Shah's case (AIR 1996 SC 1378) and for accommodating meritorious students belonging to SC, ST and BCs. It is thus clear that Y.Raghavendra's case (6 supra) is not an authority for the proposition as to whether the reservations in favour of local candidates are to be made institution-wise or not.
44. The mutual operation and interplay of the University of Health Sciences Act, 1986, Admission Rules and Presidential Order:
It is true that the respondent-University is required to prepare a common merit list of the candidates qualified on the basis of the marks obtained in the entrance test in accordance with Rule 9 of the Admission Rules. The Admission Rules do not provide or contemplate for preparation of merit list institution-wise. The merit list is a common master list. Rule 10 of the Admission Rules itself provides that the procedure prescribed in Annexure-III to G.O.P.No.646, Education, dated 10-7-1979 shall have to be followed in selecting the local candidates. Therefore, the question is of selection and allotment of local candidates in accordance with the Presidential Order and their allotment into each of the institutions.
45. It had already been noticed elsewhere in this judgment that the Admission Rules themselves do not provide any reservation as such in favour of the local candidates. Rule 4 of the Admission Rules declares that admission to 85% of the seats shall be reserved in favour of the local candidates in relation to the local area as provided in the Presidential Order as amended from time to time. Reservation in non-State wide Universities and educational institutions in favour of the local candidates in relation to the local area is provided by Paragraph 5 of the Presidential Order; it reads:
'5. Reservation in non-State-wide Universities and educational institutions:- (1) Admission to eighty-five percent of the available seats in every course of study provided by the Andhra University, the Nagarjuna University, the Osmania University, the Kakatiya University or Sri Venkateswara University or by any educational institution (other than a State-wide University or a State-wide Educational Institution) which is subject to the control of the State Government shall be reserved in favour of the local candidates in relation to the local area in respect of such University or other educational institution.
(2) While determining under sub-paragraph (1) the number of seats to be reserved in favour of local candidates any fraction of a seat shall be counted as one:
Provided that there shall be at least one unreserved seat.
46. A plain reading of Paragraph 5 of the Presidential Order would make it clear that admission to 85% of the available seats in every course of study provided by the Andhra University, the Nagarjuna University, the Osmania University, the Kakatiya University or Sri Venkateswara University or by any educational institution under the control of the State Government shall be reserved in favour of the local candidates. Paragraph 5 of the Presidential Order does not speak about any University-wise reservation as such. Reservation is in favour of the local candidates in relation to the local area in every course of study, whether offered by the respective Universities or educational institutions under the control of the State Government. The mandatory requirement is that 85% of the available seats in every course of study provided by the Universities or by any educational institution under the control of the State Government shall be reserved in favour of the local candidates in relation to the local area in respect of such University or other educational institution.
47. Let us view the problem from a different angle. In the State of Andhra Pradesh after the constitution of University of Health Sciences, which is a teaching and affiliating University, none of the other universities offer any education, training and research on the Allopathic and Indian Systems of Medicine, Dentistry, Pharmacy and Nursing. The whole of the medical education in the State of Andhra Pradesh is taken over by the University of Health Sciences with effect from 7th April, 1986. Act 6 of 1986 confers exclusive powers and functions upon the University of Health Sciences to formulate and maintain uniform curriculum and system of examinations for all the Medical Colleges in the respective systems of medicine and other institutions; to conduct a common entrance examination for all the medical colleges in the respective systems of medicine, for the selection of students etc.
Section 8 of the Act 6 of 1986 provides for transfer of affiliation of certain colleges and institutions to the University. It declares that notwithstanding anything in the Andhra University Act, 1925, Sri Venkateswara University Act, 1954, the Osmania University Act, 1959, the Nagarjuna University Act, 1976, the Kakatiya University Act, 1976, and Sri Krishnadevaraya University Act, 1981, the colleges and institutions earlier affiliated to those Universities be dis-affiliated from the said Universities and thereupon they shall be deemed to have been affiliated to the University of Health Sciences.
49. It would thus be clear that every institution under the control of the State Government offering any course of study shall be the unit for the purposes of making 85% of the available seats reserved in favour of the local candidates. There is no dispute whatsoever that Osmania, Gandhi and Kakatiya Medical Colleges are subject to the control of the State Government. The conclusion, therefore, is irresistible that admission to 85% of the available seats in every course of study in favour of the local candidates shall be made institution-wise and not university-wise. The Admission Rules are to be read in conformity with Paragraph 5 of the Presidential Order, since the Presidential Order has overriding effect notwithstanding anything contained in any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation or other order in respect of admissions to any University or to any other educational institution subject to the control of the State Government. To put it plainly, the Presidential Order shall prevail over all the statutes, ordinances, regulations etc., in respect of admissions to any University or any other Educational Institution subject to the control of the State Government. The Admission Rules have to yield to the Presidential Order.
50. Interpretation of paragraph 5 of the Presidential Order:
The learned Standing Counsel submitted that if the rules are capable of two interpretations, the court should accept the long drawn process and procedure adopted by the University and should not upset the selections already made. It is submitted that the University followed the procedure of making reservations in favour of the local candidates, university-wise, for the last more than two decades and such procedure, which in vogue for a long time, should not be upset by the court. The learned Standing Counsel would place reliance upon the observations made by the Supreme Court in Uma Kant V. Bhika Lal Jain9. The Supreme Court in the said decision observed:
'It is well settled that in matters relating to educational institutions, if two interpretations are possible, the Courts would ordinarily be reluctant to accept that interpretation which would upset and reverse the long course of action and decision taken by such educational authorities and would accept the interpretati8on made by such educational authorities.'
51. The submission made by the learned Standing Counsel is totally untenable and unsustainable for more than one reason:
Firstly, there is no material made available by the respondent-University in order to satisfy the court that the University followed the procedure of making 85% of reservation in the available seats in favour of the local candidates, university-wise, and not institution-wise. It would be interesting to notice that the University itself followed the institution-wise reservation in favour of the local candidates and not university-wise and stated so in the counter affidavit filed in Y.Raghavendra (5 supra) inter alia contending that 'reservation of 85% seats and 15% of seats have to be made in such a way the 85% of the seats in each college are filled with local candidates and the remaining 15% seats are filled with open candidates.........' Therefore, the plea now taken that the University for a very long time made reservation of 85% of the available seats in every course of study in favour of the local candidates, university-wise and not institution-wise, is incorrect and devoid of any merit.
Secondly, the doctrine/principle of Contemporanea expositio applies only to the construction of ambiguous language in old statutes. The Supreme Court in Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. V. Union of India10 observed:
'Contemporanea expositio, is a well settled principle or doctrine which applies only to the construction of ambiguous language in old statutes. Reliance may be placed in this connection on Maxwell 13th edn., page 269. It is not applicable to modern statutes. Reference may be made to G.P. Singh, Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 3rd edn., pages 328 and 239. As noted in Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, 12th edn., at page 269 that the leading modern case on contemporanea expositio is the case of Campbell College, Belfast V. Commissioner of Valuation for Northern Ireland (1946) 2 All ER 705 in which House of Lords has made it clear that the doctrine is to be applied only to the construction of ambiguous language in the very old statutes. It is therefore well to remember what Lord Watson said in Clyde Navigation Trustees V. Laird (1983) 8 AC 658 that contemporanea expositio could have no application to a modern Act. We, therefore, reject the attempt on the part of the petitioners to lead us to this forbidden track by referring to various extraneous matters which we have indicated before. Furthermore those external aids sought before us do not support the petitioners' approach to this question at all.'
52. It is well settled that mistaken construction of the statute by the persons who dealt with the statute does not bind the court so as to prevent the court in giving to it its true construction. When the interpretation of a statutory instrument is wholly contrary to the object of the statute, merely because it had remained to be the interpretation of the administrators of the statute for a considerable length of time, the same cannot be permitted to continue to be so when it is erroneous and it is so brought to the notice of the court. This court would be failing in its duty if it did not declare an erroneous interpretation of law by the administrators of the Act to be so, solely on the ground that such interpretation remained in vogue for some considerable time.
53. Thirdly, there is no possibility of placing any such interpretation as suggested by the learned Standing Counsel interpreting paragraph 5 of the Presidential Order providing reservation in favour of the local candidates, university-wise or region-wise. The Presidential Order is not susceptible to more than one interpretation. The language employed in Paragraph 5 of the Presidential Order is clear and unambiguous and mandates to reserve 85% of available seats in every course of study in each educational institution under the control of the State Government in favour of the local candidates.
Conclusions:
For the aforesaid reasons, it is to be held that admission to 85% of the available seats in every course of study provided by every educational institution (other than a State-wide Educational Institution) which is subject to the control of the State Government shall be reserved in favour of the local candidates in relation to local area in respect of such educational institutions. In the instant case, 85% of the available seats in Post Graduate Medical Courses are to be reserved in favour of the local candidates in each of the medical colleges, that is to say, Osmania, Gandhi and Kakatiya Medical Colleges. All the three colleges/institutions cannot be grouped together for the purposes of determining the reservation of 85% of the available seats in Post Graduate Medical Courses in favour of the local candidates. The reservation is to be made each institution-wise.
Relief:
Admittedly, such a procedure has not been followed. In the circumstances, there shall be a declaration that the admissions into Post Graduate Medical Courses in Osmania, Gandhi and Kakatiya Medical Colleges for the academic year 2001-2002 are void being violative of A.P. Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions) Order, 1974. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the respondent University to make admissions in accordance with the Presidential Order duly reserving 85% of the available seats in Post Graduate Medical Courses in each Medical College in Osmania University and Kakatiya University area. The admissions shall accordingly be redone.
A writ of Mandamus shall accordingly be issued.
54. It is, however, conceded that the admission of respondent No.3 already made shall in no manner be affected on account of this direction.
55. The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.