@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
1. The dispute in the instant batch of writ petitions relates to the admissions into first year Engineering Courses under Sports quota. All the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions are claiming seats under Sports and Games quota. The legality and validity of pattern of priorities adopted for admission into Engineering Courses for 1/2 % seats reserved for the Games and Sports is challenged in this batch of writ petitions. The legality and validity of G.O. Ms. No.103, dated 15-7-2000 and G.O. Ms. No.149, dated 20-10-2000, under which the pattern of priorities are fixed, are impugned in this batch of writ petitions on various grounds.
2. The admission into under graduate professional courses, viz., Engineering, Agricultural and Medical are regulated by the rules known as "Andhra Pradesh Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission into Under-Graduate Professional Courses through Common Entrance Test) Rules, 1993" (for short ''the Rules''). The Rules themselves are made by the Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 read with Section 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 (for short ''the Act''.) The method of admission of students into various first year Under-Graduate courses in various professional educational institutions is prescribed by the said rules. The rules prescribe the qualifications required to be possessed by the candidates seeking admission into the said courses. The rules declare that the admissions shall be made in the order of merit on the basis of ranking assigned to the students in the Common Entrance Test known as EAMCET conducted for the purpose. We are, for the present, not concerned with the details of procedure for admission into Government/ University Professional Colleges/Regional Engineering Colleges and Private Professional Engineering Colleges. However, one important aspect is required to be noticed that the rules declare that the selection of candidates and allotment of courses/institutions in respect of University Professional Colleges, Regional Engineering Colleges and Private Professional Colleges shall be solely on the basis of merit as adjudged by the rank obtained in the Common Entrance Test subject to the condition that the candidate should have passed the qualifying examination with minimum marks prescribed for the entrance test. The rules further declare that mere appearance at the entrance test and obtaining high rank in the merit list does not entitle a candidate to be considered for admission automatically into any course/ branch/ institutions, unless he also satisfies the rules and regulations of admission prescribed by the concerned University/ Government including the marks to be obtained in the qualifying examination. The Rules provide for various reservations for admission including the reservation of seats for SC/ST/BC communities and reservation of seats for women. The Rules also provide for ''other categories of reservation''. Rule 8 (4) of the said Rules deals with other categories of reservation. It says that seats shall also be reserved in each branch of an institution, except Medical and Dental Colleges in the categories mentioned therein to the extent indicated against each of the category. 1/2% (0.5%) of seats are reserved for Games and Sports. However, if suitable candidates are not available in any category, they shall be filled in with the candidates from open competition. Rule 8 (4) (c) of the said Rules provides that the priorities in respect of categories mentioned in items (a) and (b) shall be declared by the Government. Rules provide for other categories of reservation including for Games and Sports, but the priorities are to be declared by the Government.
3. This broad view and scheme of the rules regulating admissions into first year Engineering Courses is to be kept in view for the purposes of deciding the question relating to the validity of G.O. Ms. No.103, dated 15-7-2000 fixing pattern of priorities to be adopted for admission into Engineering Colleges for 1/2% seats reserved for the Games and Sports from the academic year 2000-2001 onwards. There cannot be any dispute whatsoever that the Government in exercise of the power conferred upon it by the rules referred to hereinabove prescribed and laid down the pattern of priorities to be adopted for admission for 1/2% seats reserved for the Games and Sports. The power of the Government to prescribe the pattern of priorities is traceable to the rules, which are statutory in nature, since they are framed under the said Act.
4. The Government of Andhra Pradesh fixed the pattern of priorities to be adopted for admission into Engineering Colleges for 1/2% seats reserved for Games and Sports from the academic year 1993-94 onwards in G.O. Ms. No.195, dated 26-8-1993. Altogether, there were 6 priorities and 29 games and sports were identified for consideration for allotment of seats reserved for sports category. However, pursuant to an order passed by this Court in WP No.13916 of 1999, dated 1st December, 1999, the Government having considered the issue included three more games, viz., Judo, Teakwando and Softball in the list of identified sports and games. The pattern of priorities in G.O. Ms. No.195, dated 26-8-1993 fixed by the Government itself was pursuant to the certain observations made by a Division Bench of this Court in Rohit Pande v. Government of A.P. and others, WP No.12953 of 1992 and Batch, dated 12-2-1993, about which a reference may have to be made in this order to deduce the principles laid down in that judgment.
5. It appears that the Government in the light of its experience ever since 1993 when the G.O. Ms. No.195, dated 26-8-1993 was issued fixing the priorities and in view of certain observations made by this Court in WP No.27055 of 1998 about certain anomalies in G.O. Ms. No.194, dated 26-8-1993, having re-considered the entire issue passed orders in G.O. Ms. No.103, dated 15-7-2000 fixing the pattern of priorities to be adopted for 1/2% seats reserved for the Games and Sports. Under the impugned Governmental Order there are as many as 34 priorities to be taken into consideration for admission in the 1/2% seats reserved for the Games and Sports. Of course, two more categories are added by G.O. Ms. No.149, dated 28th October, 2000. Now, in all there are 36 priorities and 29 sports and games are identified for the purpose. The said decision is impugned in this writ petition.
6. Sri M.R.K. Chowdary, learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in WP No.23810 of 2000 contends that the Government''s decision amending the pattern of priorities suffers from incurable legal infirmities. It is submitted that the exclusion of certain priorities as in G.O. Ms. No.195, dated 26-8-1993 is arbitrary and irrational. It is submitted that the Government is not justified in providing 36 priorities in sports quota by superseding G.O. Ms. No.195, dated 26-8-1993. It is contended that the action of the Government is highly arbitrary and irrational in deleting certain priorities from that of G.O. Ms. No.195, dated 26-8-1993. It is also submitted that the Government of Andhra Pradesh by its decision reflected in G.O. Ms. No.254, dated 28-4-1993 provided 55 priorities under the Sports and Games quota for admission into Medicine, while restricting the priorities to 36 for admission into Engineering Colleges. The same according to the learned senior Counsel, is discriminatory.
7. Sri Nuty Rama Mohan Rao, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in WP Nos.20223 and 24774 of 2000 contends that radical change in fixation of priorities after holding the entrance examination and declaration of results thereof is not only arbitrary but also irrational. It effects the rights of the candidates accrued under G.O. Ms. No.195, dated 26-8-1993, which were in existence at the time when the applications were invited from the eligible candidates seeking admission into first year Engineering Courses. The learned Counsel submits that the Court need not go into the validity of the impugned G.O. Ms. No.103, dated 15-7-2000 and it would be suffice if a declaration is given that the revised priorities would be applicable for admissions from next academic year onwards. It is also contended that the removal of priority No.4 altogether from G.O. Ms. No.195, dated 26-8-1993 is arbitrary. By re-fixing the priorities, the Government defeated the whole objective of providing sports quota to eligible candidates.
8. Sri P. Venugopal, learned Advocate made similar submissions. Other learned Advocates adopted the submissions. Smt K. Sesharajyam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP No.22626 of 2000 submits that more that 3/4th of the candidates are from priority No.35 to 55 mentioned in G.O. Ms. No.254, dated 28-4-1993, and their non-inclusion in the impugned Governmental Order would amount to practically depriving the candidates of their legitimate right for consideration of their cases for admission under sports quota.
9. The learned Government Pleader for Higher Education Sri Satyanarayana Prasad contends that fixation of priorities under the impugned Government Order in no manner affects any vested right of any of the candidates seeking admission into Engineering Courses. It is submitted that priorities are widened in comparison to what is mentioned and contained in G.O. Ms. No.195, dated 26-8-1993. There is no curtailment or restriction of priorities as such. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that in the prospectus issued by the respondents, it is clearly mentioned that the admissions under NCC, Sports and Games categories shall be made subject to the rules and amendments that may be issued by the Government from time to time. It is clearly indicated that the admissions will be made by the authorities as per the rules in force at the time of admissions. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the interested candidates seeking admission in Engineering Courses were not put on notice of likelihood of change in priorities under the special categories.
10. In the counter-affidavit, it is stated in categorical terms that on 3-4-2000 a meeting has been convened with the officials of Sports Authority, Andhra Pradesh to discuss the problem regarding admission under Sports category for Engineering and other allied courses. During the course of discussions, it was felt that in order to encourage the genuine sportsmen, it may be necessary to rationalise the present priorities. In the meeting it was decided to adopt the priorities list that has been adopted for the Medical admission, which is quite exhaustive, as compared to the one being followed for Engineering admissions. It was suggested to adopt the priorities from 1 to 34 of Medical stream and to delete priorities from 35 to 55, as mere representation in Sports in these events may not be reflection of a candidate''s excellence in Sports. Basing on the said suggestion made in that meeting, proposals have been submitted to the Government by the Commissioner of Technical Education to consider the proposals for adopting priorities from Sl No.1 to 34 under Medical stream, for admission into Engineering Course. The Government accordingly issued orders vide G.O. Ms. No.103, dated 15-7-2000 fixing the priorities and list of Sports and Games under this category from the academic year 2000-2001 onwards. Ball Badminton was later on included in the list of games as item 29 pursuant to the recommendations of the Sports Authority.
11. The Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh vide his letter dated 11-8-2000 requested for inclusion of the following priorities in addition to the priorities 1 to 34:
35. Represented the State in the Senior National Championship for Men/Women.
36. Represented the state in Junior National Championship for Boys/Girls.
On the basis of the proposals and on the recommendations of the Commissioner of Technical Education, the Government having considered the same, directed inclusion of above two priorities vide G.O. Ms. No.149, dated 28-10-2000.
12. In nutshell, it is the case of the respondents that a detailed exercise was made by the Government before formulating the priorities. The views of expert bodies have been taken into consideration. The Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh is the expert body consulted by the Commissioner of Technical Education in the matter. According to the respondents, a lot of thought has been given in fixing the priorities and list of Sports and Games to be considered before the decision was taken by the Government in the matter.
13. In my considered opinion, the exercise done by the Government and the decision making process is not vitiated for any reasons whatsoever. A decision by an authority does not become arbitrary and irrational by merely characterising such decision as an arbitrary one. As is evident from the record, as per G.O. Ms. No.195, dated 26-8-1993 under the Games and Sports category, there were only six priorities and 29 Games and Sports were identified for consideration for allotment of seats reserved in that category. Now, there are 36 priorities. Priorities 1 to 34 of Medical stream are adopted for the purposes of admission into Engineering stream also. It appears that the Government after thoughtful consideration came to the conclusion that mere representation in Sports in some of the events may not be any reflection of a candidate''s excellence as such in Sports. Accordingly, the Government thought it fit not to include the priorities 35 to 55 of Medical stream. At any rate, it is required to notice that whole of the priorities of Medical stream were never adopted by the Government for the purpose of admissions in Engineering Courses even prior to the present Government Order. The plea of discrimination, in my considered opinion is totally misconceived. Admissions into Medicine and Engineering are two different streams. It is pertinent to note that even while G.O. Ms. No.254, dated 28-4-1993 was in force providing seats in sports quota for medical admissions; such admissions in the Engineering courses and priorities were regulated by G.O. Ms. No.195, dated 26-8-1993. Both of them were simultaneously in force operating in their respective fields. In the circumstances, the comparison between G.O. Ms. No.254, dated 28-4-1993 and G.O. Ms. No.195, dated 26-8-1993 is of no relevance. The plea of discrimination is totally misconceived. It is very important to notice that the said rules provide percentage of reservation for medical and dental courses at 1/4% (0.25%) for Games and Sports, while the reservation for the Games and Sports is 1/2% (0.50%) in case of Engineering Courses. This is an important aspect that has to be taken into consideration while considering the question as to whether there is any discrimination at all. In my considered opinion, there is no basis whatsoever for comparison between the prioritisation and cateogrisation of Games and Sports in case of admission into Medicine with the prioritisation and categorisation in the case of admission into Engineering Courses. The Division Bench in Rohit Pande (supra) in categorical terms observed that "no comparison be made between one professional course and the other". It is also held by the Court that "it is for the State Government to determine the percentage of reservation in favour of any category of students on the basis of relevant factors. No one can claim as of right as to the reservation of the seats in such categories, which do not fall under Article 15 of the Constitution of India".
14. Altogether exclusion of priority No.4 in G.O. Ms. No.195, dated 26-8-1993 is arbitrary, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioners. The Court cannot sit in appeal over such decisions, which are taken in consultation with the expert bodies. It is not possible for the Court to indicate as to what category of sports are to be included or excluded and as to how the priorities thereof are to be fixed by the Government. The exercise depends upon variety of factors and circumstances. It is clearly explained in the counter-affidavit that in order to encourage the genuine sportsmen, the Government thought it fit to rationalise the orders that were in force in fixing the pattern of priorities and sports to be considered under the category and accordingly G.O. Ms. No.149, dated 20th October, 2000 has been issued fixing the pattern of priorities and also specifying the Games and Sports which are required to be taken into consideration in accordance with the fixation of pattern of priorities. On what basis this Court can either exclude or include some sports or games and on what basis this Court has to alter the pattern of priorities? In my considered opinion, any such attempt on the part of this Court would amount to assuming the role of rule making authority or the role of an appellate authority. That is clearly not the function of the High Court acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
15. In
16. At any rate, the State by re-fixing the pattern of priorities widened the scope by increasing the number of priorities. In the process, even if one of the categories earlier in existence has been excluded, the same cannot be said to be arbitrary. After all, there is no vested right as such to seek admission into first year engineering under the sports quota. The rules made it very clear that even securing rank in the entrance test itself would not confer any right to seek automatic admission, unless the candidate fulfils other requirements in accordance with the rules in force as on the date of admission.
17. The priorities are not so fixed and tailor-made either to exclude or include any candidate as such into the category. The priorities are not altered to suit the convenience or to sexure admission of any particular candidate or group of candidates. In the circumstances, the decision cannot be said to be an arbitrary one.
18. This leads to the next question as to whether the respondents all of a sudden have changed the criteria for admission under sports quota to the detriment of the candidates during the course of admissions. It is required to notice as held by the Division Bench in Rohit Pande (supra) that a candidate who has made an application for admission into an educational institution cannot be said to have acquired any vested right for admission. The only right that he can claim is to have his application considered. The Division Bench repelled the argument that the entire process of selection is an indivisible and integrated one, commencing with the notification issued by the Convener calling for applications for entrance test and culminating in the selection of candidates for admission. It is held by this Court that "after ranking is assigned to the candidates on the basis of the marks obtained in the Common Entrance Test, the rules require that the candidate shall submit a fresh application pursuant to the admission notification issued by the concerned University/Regional Engineering College/Convener. Unless such application is submitted, the candidate is not entitled to be considered for admission, though he had appeared for the Common Entrance Test and secured high ranking.....No right accrues to a candidate for admission by merely securing a high rank in the Common Entrance Test. Eligibility for appearance for the Common Entrance Test and eligibility for admission are altogether different." In the circumstances, the Court rejected the submission holding that the entire process of selection commencing with the notification issued by the Convener and culminating in selection of candidates for admission is an integrated and indivisible one.
19. It is also held by the Division Bench that "rules of admission in force on the date of consideration of the applications submitted by the students for admission, will generally be applicable unless such consideration is held to be invalid for valid reasons." (Emphasis is of mine). This Court, however, observed that "to the extent possible efforts should be made to avoid changing of admission rules, reducing the percentage of reservation and fixing the new guidelines or order of preference for selection, as adoption of such procedure at the last minute may lead to uncertainty, confusion and unpredictability about the selection of students for admission.
20. We shall bear in mind the observations made by the Division Bench in Rohit Pande (supra). Whether in the instant case the action of the respondents has resulted in any confusion and uncertainty? We have already noticed the distinction between holding of Common Entrance Test and declaration of results thereof on one hand and commencement of process of actual admissions into Engineering Courses on the other hand. Convener, EAMCET issued notification dated 25-1-2000 notifying the date of entrance test to be held on 5-5-2000. The last date for receipt of filled in application forms was 8-3-2000. The entrance test was held on 5-5-2000. The said notification has nothing to do with the admission process. EAMCET-2000 admissions notification, Phase-I dated 14-7-2000 in clear terms notified that the schedule for Phase-II admissions for all categories including NCC/Sports/PH will be notified after completion of Phase-I admissions. The candidates who have qualified in EAMCET-2000 are advised to look for Phase-II notification in newspapers.
21. The 2nd Phase of admissions started on 14-9-2000. On 13-10-2000 it was duly notified for attention of the candidates that the counselling programme for CAP, Sports and NCC categories to be conducted on 29-10-2000, 30-10-2000 and 31-10-2000 respectively is postponed and the revised dates of counselling for these categories will be notified in due course. The notification for admission under sports quota was issued on 27-11-2000, which was scheduled to commence on 6-12-2000. Whereas G.O. Ms. No.103 superseding G.O. Ms. No.195, dated 26-8-1993 was issued laying down the priorities on 15-7-2000 itself.
22. It is required to appreciate that the rules of admission for BE/B.Tech., courses 2000-2001 (prospectus) made available to the candidates seeking admission in clear terms provide that the admissions are subject to the relevant G.Os./amendments to the existing G.Os., issued by the Government from time to time and as on the date of starting of admission process. As far as the seats reserved for NCC, Sports and Games category is concerned, it is clearly stated that the rules regarding eligibility and priorities under these special categories are, however, subject to the rules and amendments that may be issued by the Government from time to time. The admissions will, therefore, be made by the admission authorities as per rules in force at the time of admissions. In fact, the candidates were advised to look for the notification in this regard in leading newspapers. Evidently, all the required precautions were taken in the matter by the respondents and a clear announcement is made that the admissions under the said categories would be made as per rules in force at the time of admissions. The candidates are put on advance notice. In my considered opinion, the change in the priorities and inclusion and exclusion of certain games and sports is not akin to that of changing the basic and essential qualifications and eligibility criteria for admission into first year Engineering Courses. At any rate, no uncertainty or confusion is created on account of such change in priorities. G.O. Ms. No.195, dated 26-8-1993 which was in operation itself does not confer any vested right upon any of the candidates claiming seat under the sports and games category. The supercession of that G.O. by the impugned G.O. would not amount to taking away any vested right.
23. It is, however, contended that by the impugned Governmental Order, the whole object of providing seats to sportsmen to give them further encouragement to achieve distinctions in sports is defeated by the changes and amendments made to G.O. Ms. No.195, dated 26-8-1993. It is contended that many of the seats in the sports category would remain unfilled. The petitioners have gone even to the extent of contending that it is a device adopted by the respondents to make available the vacant seats under the category to the general pool, so that admissions can be made with the candidates of their own choice. The submission is totally untenable and unsustainable for more than one reason. In the additional counter affidavit filed by the Convencer, EAMCET-2000 and Commissioner of Department of Technical Education, it is inter alia stated that for the year 2000-2001 the total seats under sports category are 160. The total applications under sports category which were received by the Convener and sent to the Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh are 373. The number of candidates under priority Nos.1 to 36 as per G.O. Ms. No.103, dated 15-7-2000 are 196. It is thus clear that the number of applicants are more than the seats under sports category. Therefore, the contention that some of the seats in the sports category would remain unfilled is unsustainable. At any rate, even if any such seats remain unfilled, the same would go to general pool to be filled in strictly in accordance with the rule of merit. Question of managements of private Engineering Colleges making admissions in the unfilled vacancies of sports quota does not arise. By the impugned Government Order, the percentage of reservations in the category of sports and games is not reduced and the percentage remains unaffected. As demonstrated from the averments made in the counter-affidavit more number of candidates than the seats are available for consideration.
24. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit whatsoever in this batch of writ petitions.
25. The writ petitions shall accordingly stand dismissed. Consequently, the interim order earlier granted by this Court shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.
