Nitesh Narayan Vs. University of Health Science and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
(i) constitution - reservation - rules 5 and 8 of andhra pradesh educational institutions (regulation of admission) order, 1974 - whether reservation provided by presidential order is applicable according to university area wise or institution wise - court observed that only one interpretation of order is possible - reservation to local candidates up to extent of 85% means reservation available institution wise not area wise. (ii) extent of reservation - rules 5 and 8 of andhra pradesh educational institutions (regulation of admission) order, 1974 - court interpreted that reservation available rules extend up to 85% for local candidates and rest 15% is subject matter of state reservations. (iii) scope of rules - rule 7 (4) of andhra pradesh professional institutions (regulation of.....order1. in all these writ petitions, the interpretation of the a.p. educationalinstitutions (regulation of admission) order, 1974 (popularly known as 'presidential order, 1974') vis-a-vis the ap. professional educational institutions (regulation of admissions into under graduate, professional courses (through common entrance test) rules, 1993 (for brief 'eamcet admission rules') arises for consideration. therefore, all the writ petitions are disposed of by a common order.2. all the petitioners herein have appeared for engineering, agricultural and medical common entrance test (for brief 'eamcet-97'). they betong to osmania university local area and obtained sufficiently high ranking. they applied for admission to m.b.b.s., course in medical colleges falling under osmania university area,.....

Judgment:
ORDER

1. In all these Writ Petitions, the interpretation of the A.P. EducationalInstitutions (Regulation of Admission) Order, 1974 (popularly known as 'Presidential Order, 1974') vis-a-vis the AP. Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions into Under Graduate, Professional Courses (through Common Entrance Test) Rules, 1993 (for brief 'EAMCET Admission Rules') arises for consideration. Therefore, all the Writ Petitions are disposed of by a common order.

2. All the petitioners herein have appeared for Engineering, Agricultural and Medical Common Entrance Test (for brief 'EAMCET-97'). They betong to Osmania University Local area and obtained sufficiently high ranking. They applied for admission to M.B.B.S., course in Medical Colleges falling under Osmania University Area, under total category. But, however, they were not given admission in the Medical College of their choice under total category and on the other hand, the non-totals were given admissions in excess of the quota fixed under the Rules. Therefore, they seek appropriate directions. The individual averments in respective cases have not been referred to in this batch as the question falls for consideration is the interpretation of the Presidential Order and the Rules referred to above. Though issue in these cases was confined to the reservation to the total candidates in accordance with the Presidential Order, the learned Advocate General submitted that the Health University have not followed the constitutional reservations made to SC/ST/BC, Women etc. in respect of admissions to educational institutions and that the Committee appointed by the Government had observed that the reservation process adopted by the University was not proper. Therefore, he requested this Court to also consider the correctness of the admissions made by the Health University so that the principle of reservation in these institutions could be settled once for all. Thus, the scope of the consideration was also extended to the validity of the process of admission apart from interpretation of the Presidential Order and the rules and the respective reservations under the Presidential Order and the EAMCET Admission Rules.

3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submit that under the Presidential Order as amended from time to lime, 85% of the available seats in every, course of study shall be reserved for the total candidates subject to the reservation and that the 15% of such seats are ear-marked for non-totals. The procedure adopted by the Health University who is the competent authority for admission to M.B.B.S., course in the entire State is not in accordance with the Presidential Order and the EAMCET Admission Rules. The University has taken the entire University total area for the purpose of admission and not each institution which is contrary to the Rules. They also submitted that by virtue of not following quota reserved for totals and non-totals, a serious imbalance has been created in each institution. Instance of this was quoted with reference to Osmania University Medical College, wherein 200 seats were allotted for M.B.B.S., course, out of which 85% should be reserved for totals, if this reservation is followed, about 155 total candidates excluding S.C. candidates whose admissions not yet finalised will get admission, but, on the other hand, only 86 candidates were given admission thereby denying the admission of totals to the extent of 85% in the respective Colleges of their choice. On the other hand, the University in its counter stated that they followed the Presidential Order strictly and made admissions keeping in view G.O.Ms.No.646 dated 10-7-1979 and also EAMCET Admission Rules prescribed in G.O.Ms. No. 184 dated 20-8-1993. It is the case of the University that as far as Osmania University area is concerned, 450 seats were allotted, out of which totals are eligible for 383 seats and 67 seats were un-reserved. They have given a brake-up as follows:

AreaTotal No. of seatsLocalUnreserved

Osmania University45038367Andhra University40034060S.V. University23019634

It is the case of the University that admission was made as per Rule 7(6) and 85% of the available seats were ear-marked for totals and 15% of the seats were treated as unreserved. The Selection Committee selected the candidates into 1st year M.B.B.S., course for the academic year 1997-98 basing upon the merit ranking, option of the candidates, region, sex etc. Since the unreserved candidates secured higher merit ranking than the totals, they were given admission in the colleges of their choice. Thus, to the extent of 57 seats in Osmania Medical College and 10 seats in Gandhi Medical College went to unreserved candidates. Further; the reservations to B.C., S.C., ST., etc. candidates need not be followed in respect of 15% unreserved seats. The relevant paras in the counter reads thus:

'The Selection Committee selected the candidates for admission into 1st year M.B.B.S., Course for the year 1997-98 basing upon the merit (Rank), Option of the candidates, Region, Sex. As the unreserved seats are University area wise only, the candidates with merit shall be allotted to their higher preference of the institution as tong as the availability of seats basing upon the Region (Local or Non-Local), Sex etc. The 57 candidates with RankNo, 1, 2, 3, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 23, 27, 29, 31, 32, 37, 38, 43, 55, 57, 61, 69, 70, 74, 75, 76, 77, 84, 86, 87, 88, 91, 94, 96, 98, 99, 102, 106, 107, 108, 110, 117, 119, 120, 122, 126, 127, 130, 131, 136, 137, 142, 145, 146, 148, 152 and 156 who are better meritorious than the petitioner have given the Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad as 1st preference for selection into M.B.B.S., Course. As the seats under O.C. Category and as the unreserved seats of O.U./KU. area were available at the turn of the above 57 candidates, the candidates were selected for admission into M.B.B.S., Course at Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad and allotted to Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad.

Similarly, 10 candidates with merit have opted Gandhi Medical College,

Hyderabad and as per merit and availability of seats under O.C. and unreserved, the candidates were selected and allotted to Gandhi Medical College, Hyderabad as per the preference of the candidates. The 67 available unreserved seats of O.U./K.U area were over at Rank No. 183.

The Selection and allotment of the candidates depends upon the Rank, Local or Non-total of the candidate to that particular University area, upon the availability of unreserved seats at the turn of the candidate.

As per Rule 8 of G.O.Ms.No.184, Education Department, dated 20-8-1993, institution wise reservation is there for categories i.e., B.C., S.C., ST., only but not for 15% of Unreserved seats.'

Thus, it is the contention of the University that the un-reserved seats need not be on institution-wise and it is only on University wise, by such allotment, the candidates who get higher ranking marks will have option to choose the Medical College and accordingly 57 candidates out of 67 depending on their merit choose Osmania Medical College and to Gandhi medical College and thus there is no irregularity and illegality in the allotment. It is further stated that Rules in G.O.Ms.No. 184 only mention about the university area wise reservation in respect of the categories of BC, SC, and ST only and so far as the unreserved seals are concerned, there is no institution wise reservation and hence it is open for the University to grant admission in any of the Government colleges in Osmania University area

4. Counter Affidavit has also been filed by the Principal Secretary to the Government, Medical and Health Department. It is stated in the counter that in view of filing of number of Writ Petitions with regard to the method of admission into the educational institutions in M.B.B.S., course, Government conducted a preliminary verification and prima facie satisfied that there were some irregularities. Therefore, it constituted a Committee in G.O.Ms.No.1503 dated 27-10-1997 with the following officials:

1. Commissioner of Family Welfare -Chairman2. Director of Medical Education,Hyderabad -Member3. Principal, Osmania Medical College -Member4. Principal, Andhra Medical College,Visakhapatnam -Member5. Principal, Kurnool Medical College,Kurnool -Memberto examine the following issues:

(i) Whether the admission lists are finalised by altotting 85% or more seats meant for totals;

(ii) Whether the pro-rata reservations for SC/ST/BCs etc. are applied for the total available seats i.e., 85% total and 15% un-reserved seats;

(iii) Whether cent percent reservations for SC, ST, BC etc., are applied for 85% of total candidates only;

(iv) Whether the lists of admissions were prepared College-wise or Region-wise;

(v) Whether Region-wise or College-wise pro-rata reservations for SC/ST/BC/Army are followed;

(vi) Whether Region-wise merit lists are prepared or not;

(vii)Whether the community-wise lists in the region for SC/ST/BC/Army etc. are prepared or not;

(viii) Whether Region-wise selection/ allotment for total candidates into the colleges of total area is done or not;

(ix) Whether admissions into State-wide institutions i.e., Siddartha Medical College, Vijayawada are in accordance with Presidential Orders Annexure IV of G.O.646, G.O.184 and the prorate for SC/ST/BC was follows;

(x) Whether there are any discrepancies in selections and allotment into the 8 colleges affiliated to the University in relation to Reservation/Local/ Unreserved/SC/ST/BC-A, B, C, Detc., and also state wide institutions (Siddhartha Medical College.)

The Committee having enquired into the matter, submitted the Report to the Government on 11-11-1997 and found that certain irregularities were committed by the University of Health Sciences while making the admissions. In view of the findings, appropriate directions will be necessary and the Government will take action as per the directions issued by this Court in this regard.

5. A detailed reply was filed on behalf of the Health University to the counter filed on behalf of the Government.

6. The learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. Satyanarayana Prasad, and Mr. P. Rajagopal Rao the learned Government Pleaders appeared on behalf of the State submits that the University did not make institution wise reservations, did not provide reservations to 15% unreserved seats, failed to prepare appropriate selection lists, thereby it violated the Presidential Order and also EAMCET Admission Rules. He further submits that the entire admissions have to be declared as illegal and de novo admissions have to be undertaken by the University in accordance with the statutory provisions.

I. Whether the Presidential Order contemplated institution-wise reservations or University area-wise reservations ?

7. I need not trace the history leading to the promulgation of Presidential Order. Suffice it to say that the Geneatogy of the Presidential Order was fully traced out in the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 140 and 141 of 1996 dated 21-10-1997 : 1998(1)ALD53 (DB). The President of India in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) and (2) of Article 371D of the Constitution of India in respect of State of Andhra Pradesh issued the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions) Order, 1974, which came into force w.e.f. 1-7-1974. The order divided the total areas into three Universityareas for the purpose of admission other than State-wise, University or State-wide Educational Institutions. Para 3 of the Order is extracted below:

'3. Local Area :--(1) The part of the State comprising the districts of Srikakulam, Visakhapatnam, West Godavari, East Godavari, Krishna, Guntur and Prakasam shall be regarded as the total area for the purpose of admission to the Andhra University, the Nagarjuna University and to any other educational institution (other than State-wise University or State-wise educational institution) which is subject to the control of the State Government and is situated in that part

(2) The part of the State comprising districts of Adilabad, Hyderabad, Karimnagar, Khammam, Mahaboobnagar, Medak, Nalgonda, Nizamabad and Warangal shall be regarded as the total area for the purpose of admission to the Osmania University, the Kakatiya University and to any other educational institution (other than a State-wide University or State-wide educational institution) which is subject to the control of the State Government and is situated in that part.

(3) The part of the State comprising the districts of Anantapur, Cuddapah, Kurnool, Chittoor and Neltore shall be regarded as the total area for the purpose of admission to Sri Venkateswara University and to any other educational institution (other than a State-wide University or State-wide educational institutions) which is subject to the control of the State Government and is situated in that part.'

The reservations in non-state-wide Universities and educational institutions and reservations in State-wide Universities and State-wide educational Institutions are set-out in Paras 5 and 6 which are extracted below:

'5. Reservation in Non-State-Wide Universities and Educational Institutions :-(1) Admission to eighty-five percent of the available seats in every course of studyprovided 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 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 total candidates in relation to the total 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 total candidates any fraction of a seat shall be counted as one:

Provided that there shall be at least one unreserved seat

6. Reservation State-wide Universities and State-wide educational Institutions :--(1) Admissions to eighty-five percent of the available seats in every course of study provided by a State-wide University or a State-wide educational Institution shall be reserved in favour of and allocated among the total candidates in relation to the total areas specified in sub-paragraph (1), sub-paragraph (2) and sub-paragraph (3) of Paragraph 3 in the ratio of 42:36:22 respectively:

Provided that this sub-paragraph shall not apply in relation to any course of study in which the total number of available seats does not exceed three.

(2) While delermining under sub-paragraph (1) the number of seals to be reserved in favour of the total candidates, any Traction of a seal shall be counted as one:

Provided that there shall be at least one unreserved seal.

(3) While allocating under sub-paragraph (1) the reserved seals among the total candidates in relation to different total areas, fractions of a seal shall be adjusted by counting the greatest fractionsas one and, if necessary, also the greater of the remaining fractions as another; and, where the fraction to be so counted cannot be selected by reason of the fractions being equal, the selection shall be by lot:

Provided that there shall be at least one seat allocated for the total candidates in respect of each total area.'

The word 'available seats' has been defined in clause (a) of Para 2 which reads:

'Available seals'' in relation to any course of study, means the number of seats provided in that course for admission at any time after excluding those reserved for candidates from outside the State, or the Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences constituted under the Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences Act (A.P. Act.No.13 of 1989'

Therefore, a perusal of the above provisions indicated that 85% of the available seats in every course of study provided by the University concerned or by any educational institution, other than State-wide University or educational institution shall be reserved for total candidates in relation to the total area. State-wide educational institution subject to control of State Government have been specified in the schedule of the order. Para 9 of the order gives overriding effect which says that the provisions of the order shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any Statute, Ordinance, Rule, Regulation or other order (whether made before or after the commencement of this order) in respect of admissions to any University or to any other educational institution subject to control of the State Government. However, under Para 10, it is clarified that the order shall not effect the operation of any of the orders made by the State Government or other competent authority in respect of the reservations in the matter of admission to any University or other educational institution, in favour of women, socially and educationally backward classes of citizens, the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes insofar as such provisions were not inconsistent with theorder. It is beyond pale of controversy that the Presidential Order over-rides the other Acts, Rules and Regulations in respect of admissions to the educational institutions, which are subject to control of the State Government, except to the extent of reservations made in favour of women, B.Cs., S.Cs. and S.Ts. Osmania University total area consists of 3 Government Colleges, namely, Osmania Medical College, Gandhi Medical College and Kakatiya Medical College with intake capacity of 200, 150 and 100 respectively. Similarly, Andhra University total area consisting of Andhra Medical College, Rangaraya Medical College, Guntur Medical College with intake capacity of 150, 100 and 150 respectively. So also in case of S.V. University Area, S.V. Medical College, Kumool Medical College with intake capacity of 100 and 130. There is only one State-wide University, Siddhartha Medical College with intake capacity of 100. The reservations to various categories is as follows:

'25% for B.Cs, 15% for S.Cs. and 6% for S.Ts. and certain other percentage reserved for other categories such as Physically Handicapped, Children of Ex-Servicemen, Sports and N.C.C. etc.

Therefore, 85% of the available seats are required to be filled up by the total candidates in relation to the respective total areas. Admittedly, all the petitioners in the Writ Petitions fall in the category of total candidates in relation to Osmania University total area. But, the question that crops up for consideration is whether the 85% of available seats should be reserved for the entire total area or on the basis of each educational institution. As already stated, it is the contention of the University that the seats except those reserved for SC/ST/BC are filled up on the basis of respective total areas and it is open for the University to allot the same on the basis of the merit and in that process it may create imbalance in the individual institution in respect of total candidates and unreserved seats. On the other hand, the case of the petitioners is that the reservation of 85% seats should be in each educationalinstitution only. It is the case of the University that the Government issued G.O.P.No.646 dated 10-7-1979 wherein clear cut guidelines were fixed as to how the reservation has to be provided for and the University has followed the said guidelines meticulously and, therefore, there is no violation. There is no dispute that detailed implementation instructions were issued in G.O.P.No.646 of 1979, but that cannot be treated as the statutory rules governing the EAMCET admission, for various reasons. The Government of Andhra Pradesh enacted Act No.5 of 1983 -the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fees) Act, 1983. By virtue of the powers conferred under Section 3 read with Section 15 of the said Act, A.P. Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission into the Under Graduate Professional Courses through Common Entrance Test) Rules, 1993 have been made in G.O.Ms.No.184, Education ECU dated 20-8-1993. In view of this statutory provisions under Act No.5 of 1983 and the Rules framed in G.O.Ms.No. 184, the instructions have to yield to the statutory provisions subject to the paramountcy of the Presidential Order. Under the Rules, Common Entrance Test Committee, is constituted to prepare the list of the candidates in the order of marks obtained in the Entrance Test basing on which the admission into various courses will be made. The Convener is assigned the function for conducting the Common Entrance Examination while the competent authority is empowered to make admissions into the respective professional institutions in the State. Here, we are concerned with regard to the admission to M.B.B.S., Course for which the competent authority is the Vice Chancellor of the University of Health Sciences. Under these Rules, the admission is granted on the basis of the ranking obtained in the EAMCET Examination.

8. Let us consider whether Admission Rules of 1993 provide institution-wise or university area wise reservation and whether such-reservations are in conformity with thePresidential Order. In this regard, Rule 8 of the Admission Rules is the relevant one and the extracts to the extent necessary are reproduced below:

'8. Rules of reservation for admission:--They shall apply to all institutions including Private Professional Institutions both for 'Free Seats' and 'Payment Seats' subjects to the modification mentioned in the sub-rule (15) of Rule 7 in respect of Non-Resident Indians (NRIs.)

(1) Region-wise reservation of seats :--(a) Admission to 85% of the seats in each course, excluding the seats which are exempted from the need of Common Entrance Test, shall be reserved for the total candidates and 15% of the seats shall be left over for open competition as specified in the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission) Order, 1974 as amended in G.O.P.No.646, Education (W) Department, dated 10-7-1979.

(b) In respect of State-wide Institutions and State-wide Universities admission into 85% of seals, excluding the seats which are exempted from the need of Common Entrance Test, in each course, shall be reserved for the candidates belonging to the three total areas in the State specified in this sub-rule namely, Andhra University Area (Andhra), Osmania University Area (Telangana) and Sri Venkateswara University Area (Rayalaseema) in the ratio of 42 : 36: 22 respectively and the balance of 15% seats shall be left for open competition.

Note: xxx xxx xxx(c) The seats in all the Private Professional Colleges shall be pooled up course-wise and distributed among the three regions of the State, namely, Andhra University Area (Andhra), Osmania University Area (Telangana) and Sri Venkateswara University Area (Rayalaseema) in the ratio of 42: 36: 22 respectively as provided under sub-rule (5) of Rule 7.

Explanations :--For purposes of these rules-

(i) 'The Local Areas'- means :

XXX XXX XXX(ii) 'The total candidate' means:

XXX XXX XXX(B) A candidate for admission to the course who is not regarded as a total candidate under clause (a) in relation to any total area shall -

(a) xxx xxx xxx(b) xxx xxx xxx(C) The following categories of candidates are eligible to apply for admission to the remaining 15% of unreserved seats--

(a) All the candidates eligible to be declared as total candidates;

(b) Candidates who have resided in the State for a total period of ten years excluding periods of study outside the State or either of whose parents have resided in the State for a period of ten years excluding period of employment outside the State.

(c) Candidates who are children of parents who are in the employment of this State or Central Government, Public Sector Corporations, Local Bodies, Universities and other similar quasi-Public Institutions, within the state.

(d) Candidates who are spouses of those in the employment of the State or Central Government, Public Sector Corporations, Local Bodies, Universities and educational Institutions recognized by the competent authority and similar other quasi-Govemment institutions within the stale.

(D) If a total candidate in respect of a total area is not available to fill any seat reserved or allocated in favour of a total candidate in respect of that total area, such seat shall be filled in as if it has been unreserved, in the order of ranking assigned in the common merit list.

Note; xxx xxx xxx(2) Reservation of seats for S.C./S.T./ B.C. Communities :-(a) 15% and 6% of seals in each course in each Institution shall be reserved for the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes respectively.

The seats reserved for Scheduled Castes shall be made available to Scheduled Tribes and vice-versa, if qualified candidates are not available in the category. If qualified candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes communities are not available the left over seats reserved for them shall be treated as unreserved seats and shall be filled by the candidates of general pool.

(b) 25% seats in each course in each institution shall be reserved for the candidates belonging to the Backward Classes and shall he allocated among the four group of Backward Classes as shown below:

XXX XXX XXX(3) Reservation of Seals for women :--30% of the seals in each course in each institution shall be reserved in favour of Women candidates from each category i.e., open Competition, S.C., ST., B.C.'s -Group A, B, C, D, and Army quota, NCC, PH and Games and Sports. This rule of reservation shall not be applicable if women candidates, selected on merit in each category from 30% or more of the seats therein. In the absence of suitable women candidates -in the respective categories, those seats shall be filled in with men candidates of the same category.

(4) Other categories of reservation :--(a) Seats shall also be reserved in each branch of an institution, except Medical and Dental Colleges for the following categories to the extent indicated against each of them. However, if suitable candidates are not available in any category, they shall be filled in with the candidates from Open Competition

(b) The percentage of reservations for Medical and Dental Courses shall be as follows:XXX XXX XXX

While Rule 5 of the Presidential Order aims at admission of total 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 total 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 totals. On the other hand, if 85% of the seats are to be filled up exclusively by the total 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 [he 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 totals subject to community and other reservations and 15% of the seats shall be left open. Admittedly, in the instant case, the Health University did notfoltow this process by ear-marking 85% and 15% to totals and non-totals but filled up the seats exclusively reserved for total candidates by the candidates falling under the unreserved category. Thus, the action of the Health University is in contravention of the Presidential Order and the Rule 8 of the Admission Rules.

II. Whether the State reservations are applicable in respect of 15% unreserved seats ?

9. It is the case of the Health University that no reservations are contemplated under the Admission Rules in respect of 15% un-reserved seats. Therefore, the candidates falling under un-reserved category were granted admissions in the Medical Colleges of their choice in order of their merit rank It is also the case of the University that they have not followed the reservations to B.C./S.C./S.T. etc. under this un-reserved category. I have already held in the preceeding paragraphs that 85% of the available seats should be allocated and filled by exclusively total candidates in each educational institution subject to the State reservations. However, the learned Standing Counsel for the Health University strenuously contends that in the absence of specific provision in the Admission Rules, no reservation need be made for S.C./S.T./B.C. etc. under the 15% unreserved quota. On the other hand, the learned Advocate General submits that the State Government provided reservations on cent per cent basis to various reserved categories and if reservations are confined to 85% only, the benefit of reservations cannot be said to be 100% and, thus, it violates the protective discrimination granted to S.C./S.T./B.C. etc. However, the learned Counsel for the University admits that they had provided seats in each institution to the reserved categories on the basis of 100% reservation but adjusted within 85% of the available Seats. Thus, to put in a practical form, if 100 seats are allotted to a particular institution, 25% seats are reserved to B.C. candidates, as per the procedure adopted by the University these 25 B.C. candidates weregjven admission under 85% total quota. Whether this process is constitutionally valid. It is undisputed fact that Presidential Order shall prevail over the Admission Rules framed under GO.Ms.No.184 in so far as they are inconsistent with the former. The Presidential Order only protect the interest of the totals to the extent of 85% in each course and in each institution for The purpose of admission thereby the 15% of the seals were made available as unreserved category. Under Para 10 of the Presidential Order, the reservations in the matter of admissions to any university or any other educational institution in favour of women, socially and educationally backward classes of citizens, S.Cs., S.Ts. and other non-statutory reservations provided by the State in so far as such reservations are not inconsistent with the Presidential Order are saved. Thus, two categories of persons eligible for admission to educational institutions, one is total candidates to the extent of 85% and the balance of 15% to un-reserved candidates. The State reservations is required to be made in respect of the available seats. As already stated, the available seats are those which are arrived at after excluding the seats those reserved for candidates from outside the State; but, no seats are allotted to other State candidates. Therefore, whatever the seats that are fixed by the appropriate authority are the 'available seats' and the State reservation is applicable to the available seats. When the 85 % of the available seats are subjected to State reservation, there is no reason why the same reservation should not be made applicable in respect of the 15% of the available seats also. The Presidential Order creates two water-tight compartments containing 85% of seals to the total candidates and 15% un-reserved seats. Admission Rules also made provision for filling up of the 15% un-reserved seats. The Presidential Order as well as the Admission Rules also contain provision that if there are no sufficient candidates available to fill up the 85% total quota, the un-filled seats will be treated as un-reserved. Similarly, even in respect of the reserved categories, the unfilled seats will be treated as un-reserved and included in thegeneral pool of seats. Rule 8 of the Admission Rules also specifically states that reservation shall be in each course in each institution on cent per centbasis. Therefore, whatever seats are available in each course in each institution, they are required to be divided on the basis of 85% and 15% and necessary state reservations should be provided in both the categories separately. Thus, cent percent reservation can only be achieved if separate reservations are made to the two sets of candidates. Therefore, 15% seats are to be considered as un-reserved only for the purpose of Presidential Order but not for State reservations. Though the Health University stated that cent per cent reservation was given to the reserved categories and adjusted among 85% of the total candidates that cannot be treated as compliance of the Constitutional Reservations. For instance, if an institution is having 100 seats the SC candidates will get 15% but if the seats are only 85, then 12 seats will go to S.C. candidates. Therefore, if 15 seats are filled in 85 total seats under S.C. category, the percentage would swell to 17.11% which exceeds constitutional reservations. Therefore, necessarily the reservation must be provided under 85% total category and 15% un-reserved category separately. That process would ensure balance reservation in both the categories and thus it would be in conformity with the Constitutional mandate under 15(3) and 15(4) of the Constitution of India.

10. The learned Counsel for the Health University relies on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the Registrar, University'of Health Sciences, Gunadala, Vijayawada v. Mohd. Ishad, 1990(1) An.W.R. 220 (D.B.). It was a case where the petitioners contended that within the constitutional reservations for S.C., S.T., B.C., a further segregation should take place in the ratio of 85% and 15% to totals and non-totals. The learned single Judge accepted the contention, but, however, in the writ appeal filed by the University of Health Sciences, the order of the learned single Judge was set aside. The Division Bench while consideringthe scope of G.O.P.No.646 held that what was intended under the G.O. was to keep a minimum reservation of 85% for total candidates out of total number of available seats and the provisional list of total and nontotal is to conform to the reservation quota for S.C., ST., B.C., P.HC., Women etc. Thus, the observation of the Division Bench also supports the view taken by me in this regard to the extent that separate reservations have to be provided in each category, namely, 85% of the total category and 15% of the un-reserved category.

11. The learned Standing Counsel for the Health University also relied on the judgment of yet another Division Bench in Writ Petition No.8557 of 1985 and batch dated 10-10-1985. The Bench found that there was no reservation in two compartments 85% and 15% as total candidates and non-total candidates find place in the final list prepared in accordance with the G.O.Ms.No.749. Here, we are not concerned with the list which is subject matter in G.O.Ms.No.749. We are only concerned with the list prepared under Rules 6 and 7 of the Admission Rules. Therefore, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court is of no avail to the Health University.

12. Mr. Prasad, the learned Standing Counsel for the Health University submits that Government have also framed rules in G.O.Ms.No.4 in respect of Post-Graduate Courses in Medicine and no class-reservation was made in respect of 15% un-reserved seats and, therefore, same procedure has been followed in the case of under-Graduate Professional Courses also. I am afraid, I cannot appreciate this contention. We are only concerned with G.O.Ms.No. 184 and the rules under G.O.Ms.No.4 are not subject matter before this Court. He also relies on a Full Bench decision of this Court in W. A.Nos. 140 and 141 of 1996 dated 21-10-1997. They are related to tie reservations to P.O. Medical Courses. It was held that Article 371D is intra-vires of the Constitution and that any order passed under Article 371D of the Constitution of India making special piovisionfor area reservation based on the residential qualification is valid and prevails over the general provisions for class reservation envisaged under Article 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution of India. The Full Bench observed as follows:

'What emerges from the discussions above leads us to examine whether class reservation as presently in vogue can operate as it is in accordance with the roster which is in use, since it is not in doubt that any provision made as contemplated under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution of India cannot override the reservation for the three areas of the State under the Presidential Orders. It is irresistible that for each area, for posts in respect of which appointments are sought to be made and for seats which are sought to be filled in the educational institutions, a separate roster is required for appointment as well as for admissions to the educational institutions. Only such a roster can decide whether the required percentage of reservation to Backward classes and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from each area is provided to them. Prospecting further, it is not difficult to visualise that irrespective of number of appointments in the posts and service under the Government of the State reserved for each area pursuant to the Presidential Order such a roster can be made applicable by fictionally calculating the number of posts to be filled in and carrying forward for subsequent years the vacancies to be filled in strictly in accordance with the roster of class reservation. This however cannot be effectively applied in the case of filling up the seats in educational institutions as each year's availability of seals would depend upon determination of number of seats or creation of number of seats for any discipline of education in particular year. Carry forward can as a rule be effective only when there is some predictable determination of the number of seats which in subsequent years would becomeavailable and unless any such determination is envisaged and is understandable, each year's seats have to be filled in and exhausted in that year only. No other inference is possible thus to have any view opposite to the principle that applicability of the class reservation roster would depend upon the availability of the number of seats in a particular year. If number of seals available in a particular year are less than making the class reservation roster operational since area reservation must prevail class reservation may not be available. Without thus reserving such number of seats for different classes of persons on the basis of the fiction of the carry forward each year admissions in education institutions in different disciplines must be completed exhausted if there is a chance of any class losing the benefit of the roster, it is obvious, the roster be in operation.'

The Full Bench in the above case was concerned as to whether area wise reservation in the State of A.P. provided under the Presidential Order prevails over the class reservation envisaged under Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India and it was held that the former will prevail. But, here in this case the question is whether separate reservations have to be made in respect of 85% and 15% of the total category', and un-reserved category respectively and this was not the subject matter before the Full Bench. Moreover, admission to P.G. courses are covered by separate rules whereas in this case we are concerned with admission into under-Graduate Professional Courses. Hence the dicta laid down by the Full Bench is distinguishable on facts except to the extent that the reservations under Presidential Order still prevail over the class reservations. I need not go to the details in G.O.P.No.646 where three types of lists are contemplated (1) Provisional List, (2) Final List and (3) Reminder List. It is not stated as to who should prepare these lists. But, suffice it to say that they are only implementation instructions and the statutory rules framed in G.O.Ms.No. 184 regulating the admissions toprofessional colleges will prevail over the clarifications issued by the State Government. But, however, the admission rules are subject to the basic reservations under Presidential,, Order. Considering the whole conspectus of the reservation system as provided under Presidential Order and Rule 8 of the Admission Rules, it has to be held that 15% unreserved seats are also to be filled up subject to reservation as in the case of total category. The same procedure should also be followed in case of 15% un-reserved seats in State-wide institutions. Thus, I hold that the action of the Health University in filling up 15% unreserved seats without providing class reservations under Rule 8(2) of the Admission Rules was in contravention of the Admission Rules.

III. Whether the competent authority is required to prepare two lists under Rule 7(4)(a) and Rule 7(4)(b) and the lists as contemplated under Rule 6 of the Admission Rules ?

Here, we are concerned with only preparation of the various lists and the procedure for admission. Under Rule 6 of the Admission Rules, the Common Entrance Test Committee is required to prepare various lists for both Engineering and Non-Engineering subjects. Rule 6 is extracted below:

'6. Preparation of merit lists and assigning ranking:--The candidates who have secured qualifying marks in the Entrance Test and the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Communities to whom qualifying marks have not been prescribed, shall be assigned the ranking in the order of merit on the basis of the aggregate marks obtained in all the three relevant subjects out of the four subjects, namely, Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry and Biotogy in which appeared:

(1) The Common Entrance Test Committee shall prepare the following categories of Merit lists separately for Engineering and Non-Engineering (Agriculture and Medical) courses in theorder of marks obtained by the candidate in the Common Entrance Test:

(a) State-wide Common Merit list: --This list shall include candidates irrespective of whether one belongs to any category of reservation quota or not basing on the marks obtained in the common Entrance-Test;

(b) Region-wise common Merit List :--This list includes candidates belonging to the particular total area irrespective of whether one belongs to any category of reservation quota or not basing on the marks obtained in the Common Entrance Test;

(c) Concerned Minority Community Merit Lists .--They includes merit lists, containing the candidates belonging to the concerned minority community arranged in the merit ranking assigned in the Common Entrance Test both State-wide and Region-wise;

(d) Caste-wise Common Menl Lists :-There shall be separate merit lists for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and each group of Backward Classes communities both as State-wide lists and Region-wise lists;

(e) Merit-list for other categories of reservations .---There shall be separate merit lists for other categories of reservations mentioned under sub-rule (4) of Rule (8) Statewide and Region-wise.

(2) While preparing the merit lists, the following shall be the criteria:

(i) In the case of tie in the aggregate the marks secured by the candidate in Mathematics in the case of Engineering and Biology in the case of Medicine, Agriculture and Veterinary in EAMCET shall be taken into account to decide the relative ranking;

(ii) In the case of further tie the marks secured by the candidate in Physics for Engineering, and in Chemistry forMedicine, Agriculture and Veterinary in EAMCET shall be taken into account to decide the relative ranking;

(iii) In the case of further lie total percentage of marks secured by the candidate in the qualifying examination shall be taken into account to decide the relative ranking

(iv) In the case of further tie, older candidate shall be given priority.

3. The candidates who have appeared for both the tests in all the subjects namely 'E' category and 'AM' category in the Entrance Test and secured qualifying marks, find place in all the common Merit Lists, if otherwise qualified/eligible.

(4) The candidate who have been assigned ranking in the Entrance Test shall be issued Rank Cards. The Rank Cards among other things shall contain the details of the category of course to which the candidate is qualified namely Engineering and Non-Engineering, the rank assigned in the State-wide Merit list and the date of conduct of Interview, if any.'

Similar procedure for admission into Government/University/Professional Colleges, Regional Engineering Colleges and Private Professional Colleges. Under the said Rule, once again the competent authority after receipt of the applications for admission from the respective candidates shall prepare a common merit list and category-wise merit list as required under clause (a) and (b) of sub-rule (4) of Rule 7. The process of allotment is contained in sub-rule (6). Rule 7 to the extent relevant is extracted below:

7. Procedure for Admission into Government/University Professional Colleges/Regional Engineering Colleges and Private Professional Colleges :--(1) For the categories for which no common application form for the Entrance Examination and admission is prescribed in sub-rule (2)(a) of Rule 5, the competent authority will issue an advertisement invitingapplications for admission from the qualified candidates who have been assigned ranking in the Common Entrance Test, who are desirous of seeking admission in Government/University Professional Colleges, Regional Engineering Colleges and Private Professional Colleges. The advertisement among other things, shall indicate various documents to be produced and the kinds of fees payable to the institutions on such admission.

(2) No private Professional College shall call for application for admission separately or individually.

(3) The candidates who are qualified to seek admission as a consequence of obtaining ranking in the Common Entrance Test and desirous of seeking admission into Government/University Professional Colleges, Regional Engineering Colleges and Private Professional Institutions shall produce on demand all the relevant documents including a copy of Rank Card issued to him.

(4) The Competent Authority shall scrutinize the applications of all the eligible candidates desirous of seeking admission into University Professional Colleges, Regional Engineering Colleges and Private Professional Institutions. After scrutiny, the competent authority besides the merit list referred to in sub-rule (1) of the Rule 6, shall prepare two categories of merit list, namely:

(a) Common Merit List :-Containing the names of all the candidates arranged in the order of merit ranking assigned to them in the Common Entrance Test; and

(b) Category-wise Merit List :--Containing the names of the candidates belonging to the concerned categories arranged in the order of merit ranking assigned to them in the Common Entrance Test.

(5) The seats in all the Private Professional Institutions shall be pooled upcourse-wise and distributed among the three total areas of the State specified in sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 namely, Andhra University Area (Andhra), Osmania University Area (Telangana) and Sri Venkateswara University Area (Rayalaseema) in the ratio of 42:36:22 respectively and 50% of the pooled up seats shall be 'Free Seats' and the balance of 50% of the seals shall be 'Payment seats'. 10% of 'Payment seats' (i.e., 5% of total intake) in each branch shall be reserved for Non-resident Indians (N.RIs.)

(6) Candidates who have secured higher ranks at the Entrance Test will be called for an interview in the order of merit for selection and allotment of course/branches/ institutions. For the convenience of the candidates, representatives of all University Professional Colleges, Regional Engineering College, Warangal and Private Professional Colleges in the State shall sit at a common table. As and when each candidate gets his turn for interview in the order of merit, choice of Institutions and Branch (course of study) will be given to him, depending upon availability at the point of time with due regard to the eligibility of the candidate for a seat in a particular total area for a particular reserved category.'

Rules of reservation are contained in Rule 8 which is applicable to both free seat and payment seat. This Rule has to be in conformity with the Presidential Order. The said Rule has already been extracted in the preceeding paragraphs.

14. Local area and total candidates were defined in the Admission Rules so as to fall in line with the Presidential Order. There is also no dispute about the reservation of the seats for various communities. As already stated, 15% and 6% and 25% of available seats are reserved for S.Cs. and S.Ts. and B.Cs. respectively. 30% of the seats in each course in each institution shall be reserved in favour of Women candidates from each category. However, this Rule relating toreservation for women is not applicable if women candidates selected on merit on each category from 30% or more of the seats therein. Thus, it is seen various lists have to be prepared by the Committee and also by the competent authority. But, for the purpose of allotment of seats to various courses by the competent authority, Rule 7 is the relevant rule which has already been extracted in the proceeding paragraphs of this order.

15. From Rule 7 of the Admission Rules, it is clear that the candidates who are sent with the Rank Card and who were desirous of seeking admission to Government/University Professional Colleges, Regional Engineering College and Private Educational Institutions are required to submit application for admission enclosing copy of the Rank Card. Upon such receipt, competent authority (in the instant case, the University of Health Sciences) shall scrutinize the application for admission to University Professional Colleges, Regional Engineering College and Private Professional Institutions and then apart from the lists which are prepared under sub-rule (1) of Rule 6, it shall also prepare the following lists as per sub-rule (4) of Rule 7 of the Admission Rules:

'(a) Common Merit List :--Containing the names of all the candidates arranged in the order of merit ranking assigned to them in the Common Entrance Test; and

(b) Category-wise Merit List : --Containing the name of the candidates belonging to the concerned categories arranged in the order of merit ranking assigned to them in the Common Entrance Test.'

The procedure for allotment is contained in sub-rule (6) of Rule 7 of the Admission Rules. However, this Court identified an omission in sub-rule (4) of Rule 7 of the Admission Rules wherein the word 'Government Professional Colleges' have been excluded while in the rule the candidate is required to submit admission application and the same shall be scrutinised and list is prepared. When the application for admission itself gives option for the candidates to seekadmission in Government Professional Colleges/University Professional Colleges, Regional Engineering Colleges and Private Professional Colleges, the same set of institutions are not appearing under sub-rule (4) of Rule 7 of the Admission Rules. When this was pointed out to the learned Advocate General, he submits that in order to give a full vigour to the rule, it should be read as including 'Government Professional Colleges' also, otherwise the very purpose of framing the Rules of admission to various professional colleges would be defeated. He also submits that common merit list and the category-wise merit list as listed in sub-rule 4(a) and 4(b) of Rule 7 of the Admission Rules are to be understood in the context of Rule 6 and though it was not specifically mentioned that region-wise, category-wise, merit list has to be prepared. Unless such lists are prepared, the full effect to the Presidential Order and the Constitutional reservation can't be given. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the University submits that the rule did not spell oul in so many words and it would be rather incomprehensible that the University would prepare all the lists as contemplated under Rule 6 of the Admission Rules. It is well settled principle that the statutory provision should be interpreted harmoniously, so as to achieve the object. Admittedly, the University did not prepare the State-wide and Region-wise merit list and the category-wise merit list separately for three regions. It is true that the rule did not specifically spell out the nature of merit list more especially in the wake of Presidential Order. Unless the merit list is prepared on State-wide basis and region-wise basis and also separate category-wise, the avowed objects underlying the Presidential Order and the Constitutional reservations to S.C., ST., B.C., etc., cannot be achieved. It is not impermissible to supply words while interpreting the provision for the effectuation of the object sought to be achieved (See : D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, : (1983)ILLJ104SC ). and B. Prabhakar Rao v. State of A.P., : AIR1986SC210 . If the competent authority is to prepare the list of candidates seeking admission, only to the UniversityProfessional Colleges, Regional Engineering Colleges and Private Educational Institutions, then a separate list for the Government Professional Institutions would have to be prepared for the purpose of admission for which no separate mechanism has been provided in the Rules. Therefore, it has to be necessarily understood that the lists which are to be prepared under sub-rule (4) of Rule 7, should also cover the candidates seeking admission to Government Professional Colleges. Unless the word 'Government' is added, before the word 'University Professional Colleges', the full meaning cannot be secured. Hence, I am in agreement with the submission of the learned Advocate General that the lists prepared by the competent authority under sub-rule (4) should also comprise of the candidates seeking admission to Government Professional Colleges. Consequently, in sub-rule (6) of Rule 7, the word 'Government Professional College' should be added so as to enable the representative of the Government Professional Colleges, to sit at the common table for the purpose of allotment. But the further question that arises for consideration is whether the common merit list and category-wise merit list as prepared by the competent authority are in conformity with the Presidential Order and whether the reservation laid down under the Presidential Order and the Admission Rules can be achieved by the preparation of the these lists. Under Rule 6 of the Admission Rules, the common entrance committee shall prepare various lists under clauses (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e). But, however, in case of Rule 7, no such lists have been prescribed and the competent authority shall only prepare the common merit list and category-wise merit list in respect of the candidates seeking admission into various professional colleges. The only difference between Rule 6 and 7 of the Admission Rules is that the merit list so prepared under Rule 7 only comprises of the candidates seeking admission after getting rank card, while under Rule 7 general lists are prepared. The Presidential Order says that the 85% of the available seals, in each course shall be reserved for total candidates and15% of the seals shall be led over for the open competition. But, this equation can be achieved only if all the lists which are enumerated in Rule 6 are prepared by the. Competent Authority once again among the candidates who applied for admission. Otherwise, it would lead to a chaotic situation. Rule 6 of the Admission Rules stipulated the preparation of such list by the Committee only. But, those lists are also necessarily to be prepared by the competent authority so as to allot the candidates on the basis of the merit from the respective merit lists. The Rule framing authority should have taken more care while framing the rules in a comprehensive manner. When they have prescribed various lists to be prepared under the Rule 6, there is-no reason why the same lists were not mentioned in Rule 7 to be prepared by the competent authority. Obviously, the competent authority appears (o have proceeded on the basis of the two lists and they would not be sufficient for giving effect to the Presidential Order and the constitutional reservations. Under those circumstances, I am convinced that the common merit lists and the category-wise merit list as stated in sub-rule (4)(a) and (b) of Rule 7 of the Admission Rules should be read as '(a) State-wide common merit list on the basis of the marks obtained in the common entrance test, (b) Region-wise common merit list comprising of respective total areas, (c) the concerned minority community list both State-wide and region-wise, (d) Caste-wise common merit list in respect of S.C., ST., and B.C. communities State-wide and Region-wise; and lastly (e) merit list of other categories mentioned under sub-rule (4) of Rule 8 of the Admission Rules, both State-wide and region-wise.

16.(IV) Whether the silence on the part of the Government for the last several years would ratify the irregular procedure followed by the authorities ?

17. The learned Standing Counsel for the Health University submits that for the last several years, the same procedure was followed and at no point of time, the Government opposed the process of admission.Even in respect of EAMCET-97 admissions also, the Government did not point out the omissions which appears to have been identified by the Committee. He also submits that under the provisions of the Health University Act, the affiliation of certain colleges and institutions were transferred to the fold of University of Health Sciences as contained in Section 9. Under Section 10, it is open for the Government to inspect the Health University and cause an Enquiry into the leaching and other works conducted or done by the University or in respect of any matter connected with the University. The Inspection Report of the Government will be sent to the Vice-Chancellor for obtaining the views of the Executive Council and the Government shall tender such advice as they consider necessary and call upon the Executive Council to report the action taken on the advice tendered. However, if no action is taken, it ds open for the Government to issue directions as they may think fit and the University shall comply with the said directions. Taking clue from this provision, the learned Standing Counsel for the Health University submits that the Government having inspected the process of admission ought to have brought to the notice of the University and also tendered proper advice. But, in the instant case, no such advice was tendered. Therefore, silence on the part of the Government would amount to ratification of the actions taken by the University. The learned Advocate General submits that they could not take appropriate action on the basis of the report submitted by the Committee constituted by the Government as the matter is sub-judice before this Court, and therefore, any action initiated by the Government may amount to interference in the course of justice. While I do not find any deliberate omission on the part of the University or State Government. I find that the University appears to have followed the procedure as was followed in the earlier years and the Government did not check this process meticutously at any earlier point of time. It is only when the writ petitions are filed on the interpretation of the Presidential Order, the Government appears to haveconstituted a Committee which rendered finding on various masters connected with the Presidential Order and the State Reservations. Since we are only concerned with the interpretation of Presidential Order and the Rules, which is required to be done in accordance with the Constitutional Provisions, we do so without reference to the action taken by the Government or the procedure that was adopted by the Health University. It need not be lost sight of that the medical course is one of the important professional courses and if the scheduled academic programme is disturbed it would cause irreparable harm to the students who are under-going course. Therefore, it is always incumbent on the part of the Government, which has been empowered to over see the working of the Health University, to ensure that proper admissions are being made in accordance with the Presidential Order and the Rules. The contentions of the State Government and the University are travelling in a diametrically opposite direction leading to head on collision. This has to be avoided in the interest of smooth administration of the professional education system in the State. The Government of Andhra Pradesh which is the supreme body under the Health University Act to check the functioning of the University of Health Sciences at the same, time is also expected to bestow its attention on the method and manner of admission process adopted by the University rather than disapproving the process and that too after admissions are closed. Had the Government over seen the admission process from the beginning of the selections and admissions this situation could have been avoided. But, the Government appears to have woken only when the matters are brought before this Court. Therefore, on the consideration of the entire matter, I find that the authorities have violated the Presidential Order and failed to implement the reservations on institution-wise basis, the authorities have also not provided the reservations to the 15% unreserved seats in accordance with the State reservations, the lists as stipulated under Rule 6 of the Admission Rules have not been prepared bythe EAMCET Entrance Test Committee. So also, the lists which are required to be prepared for ensuing proper allotment of seats have not been prepared. This Court tried to salvage the admissions in view of the fact that academic year had commenced. But when it was found that irretrievable and irreconcilable omissions had crept in offending the very provisions of Presidential Order and the Statutory Admissions Rules, there is no other alternative except to quash the entire admissions. For these reasons and with great reluctance, I hold that the entire process of admission is vitiated by various irregularities as set out above and accordingly the admissions made by the Health University to 1st year M.B.B.S. course 1997-98 are set aside in to to.

18. The admissions to M.B.B. S. course were finalised by 15-9-1997 and the classes were commenced on 22-9-1997. But, however, the Government appears to have issued notification suspending the classes from 29-9-1997 and as on today the situation is very gtoomy as no classes are being conducted for more than nearly three months and it is the need of the hour that urgent steps should be taken to review the situation to save further toss of precious academic year of the medical students. Therefore, I am inclined to issue the following Directions:

(1) The Common Entrance Test Committee shall forthwith prepare a merit list in accordance with Rule 6 of the A.P. Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission into under Graduate Professional Courses through Common Entrance Test) Rules, 1993 notified in G.O.Ms.No. 184, Education EO-II dated 20-8-1993 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(2) The competent authority namely the University of Health Sciences shall prepare similar lists as contained in Rule 6(1), (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) in respect of the candidates who applied for admission to Government/University Professional Colleges and Private Professional Colleges.

(3) The competent authority shall make admissions to M.B.B. S. course reserving 85% seats to total institution-wise subject to the community reservations and other non-statutory reservations made under the Admission Rules by the State Government. The competent authority shall also make admission separately to 15% unreserved seats institution-wise duly subjecting them to similar reservations as applicable to 85% total candidates.

(4) In respect of State-wide institutions, 85% of available seats should be filled up by the concerned total area candidates in Andhra University Area, Osmania University Area and Sri Venkateswara University Area in the ratio of 42: 36: 22 subject to State reservations and 15% seats left open as unreserved seats shall be filled separately duly subjecting to State Reservations.

(5) In respect of private professional institutions, the relevant rule as applicable shall be followed duly observing the rules of reservations both in respect of free seats and payment seats subject (o modifications mentioned in sub-rule (15) of Rule 7 of the Admission Rules in respect of Non-Resident Indians.

(6) The admissions shall be made on the basis of merit ranking. They shall be made first to the total candidates in relation to relevant total area. Thereafter the admissions shall be made under unreserved quota after pooling up the unfilled seals if any total quota both O.C. and reserved categories.

(7) In case of reserved candidates qualifying on merit for admission in O.C. category, the admissions shall be made on the basis of principles settled by the Supreme Court in State of Bihar and others v. M. Neethi Chandra and others, : (1996)6SCC36 .

(8) In case of any doubt which may arise on account of implementation of the Rules of Admission or Presidential Order, it is open for the Health University to bring itto the Notice of the Government which shall consider the same and tender proper advice.

(9) This exercise shall be done within a period of 6 weeks from the dale of receipt of the copy of this order. It is also appropriate for the State Government to oversee the 'admissions and if necessary place at the disposal of the Health University, the services of competent persons if sought by the Health University to accomplish the time bound schedule.

(10) For the purpose of proper Counselling the authorities shall give wide publicity for the information of candidates through various news papers apart from Radio and Television net work

19. Writ Petitions are allowed. No costs.