JUDGMENT
M.N. Rao, J.
1. This judgment will dispose of the three writ petitions in view of the commonality of questions involved.
2. All the petitioners in these three writ petitions belong to “other Backward Classes (OBCs)” in whose favour, the government have reserved 25% of the seats in medical colleges at the diploma level, graduate level and post-graduate level. The percentage of reservation in favour of members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes is in the ratio of 14%, 4% and 25% respectively. The Backward Classes are sub-divided into four groups – A, B, C and D – and the reservation in favour of each of these groups is in the ratio of 7%, 10% 1% and 7% respectively.
3. In the first instance, the government issued G.O.Ms.No.1793. Education, dated 23-9-1970 by which the 25% reservation in favour of the Backward Classes was confined to professional courses at graduate level only. Subsequently, five years later, by G.O.Ms.No.996, Employment and Social Welfare (P) Department dated 11th November, 1975, the State Government directed that the “reservation of seats for the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes be extended to all Post-Graduate courses including professional Post- Graduate courses also”. In these three writ petitions, we are concerned with admissions to Post-Graduate medical courses relating to Osmania and Kakatiya University areas.
4. The University of Health Sciences, every year, conducts ‘entrance test’ for admission to Post-Graduate Diploma and Degree courses in medicine and surgery. The entire State of Andhra Pradesh in relation to medical colleges is divided into three local areas: (i) Osmania/Kakatiya University area, (ii) Andhra/Nagarjuna University area: and (iii) Sri Venkateswara University area.
5. In June, 1993, the entrance test was conducted for admission to Post- Graduate Diploma and Degree courses for the academic year 1992-93. After the results were published, some candidates who failed to come up to the zone of consideration for admission filed a batch of writ petitions in this Court W.P.No. 9491 of 1993 and batch -questioning the validity of the entrance test, inter alia, on two grounds: i) for certain questions in the entrance test, the key answers prepared by the University were wrong; and ii) for certain questions, the answers were more than one. A Division Bench of this Court consisting of V. Sivaraman Nair and S.V. Maruthi, JJ. in the course of hearing of the writ petitions, thought it fit to refer the matter to a committee of experts to examine the validity of the answers found in the key supplied by the University with regard to 51 questions. The committee found that in respect of 28 questions, the answers in the key were wrong and for the rest, the answers were correct. The committee recommended for revaluation of the answer scripts. The Division Bench, based upon the recommendation of the committee, directed that the revaluation should be confined only to certain writ petitions in the batch and based upon the result of the revaluation, admissions should be made. The University of Health Sciences filed a review petition seeking review of the judgment of the Division Bench contending that the benefit of revaluation should be extended to all the candidates who appeared for the entrance test. That review petition was allowed and consequently, the University authorities had undertaken the arduous task of getting all the question papers revalued on the basis of the key prepared by the committee of experts. As there were no stay orders, students who secured admission on the basis of the entrance test were pursuing their courses of study – both Diploma and Degree courses. In consequence of the allowing of the review petition, apprehending that they might be disturbed from the courses which they were pursuing or might even lose the seats if wholesale revaluation was to be effected, several students filed a batch of writ petitions – W.P.No.10230 of 1994 and batch. This batch of writ petitions came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court comprising K.M. Agarwal and P. Venkatarama Reddi, JJ… After hearing both sides, the Division Bench, while allowing the writ petitions, gave certain directions which are to the effect:
(i) The selected candidates who are already pursuing their courses of study should not be disturbed:
(ii) There was no need to conduct fresh entrance test for the academic year 1993-94 as the academic year also was coming to a close by then; and
(iii) The candidates who become entitled for admission as a result of the revaluation should be adjusted against the seats earmarked for the academic year 1993-94.
6. The petitioners in W.P.Nos. 10933 and 16200 of 1994 appeared for the entrance test held in June, 1993 and were admitted to the degree and diploma courses depending upon the ranks secured by them. Because of the allowing of the review petition, as a result of which revaluation was done, their position was improved. They, therefore, are seeking readjustment of the seats on the basis of the revised ranks by following the ratio of reservation of seats among the B.C. Groups both in P.G. Degree courses and P.G. Diploma courses separately. There are two petitioners in W.P.No. 20814 of 1994. They appeared for the entrance examination held on 23rd October, 1994. The first petitioner secured 151st rank and the second petitioner, 268th rank. Both of them belong to Backward Class ‘A’ group.
7. For purposes of admissions to Post Graduate Degree and Diploma courses, the University of Heal the Sciences issued rules for the academic year 1992-93. Practically, there is no change in the rules followed by the University for more than a decade. Rule 3 speaks of reservations in favour of not only persons belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Clashes but also’ inservice candidates’. The percentage of seats reserved in favour of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward classes in 15%, 6% and 25% respectively. N.B. (i) and (iv) to Rule 3, which are relevant, are in the following terms:
“(i) In the subjects where the number of seats in Degree course is 4 or more, the reservation to SC, ST and BC candidates shall be followed in the specialities in degree and diploma courses separately. If the number of seats is less than 4 in Degree Course, the reservation shall be followed in those subjects after adding the number of seats if any in the concerned Diploma. In case there are no seats in Diploma for such subjects with less than 4 seats in the Degree course, reservation will not apply. However, the total percentage of reservation of seats i.e. 15%, 6% 25% provided to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes on the total number of seats in all the subjects available in each group shall be maintained.
(ii) ……………….
(iii) …………………
(iv) Number of seats reserved for Scheduled castes, Scheduled Tribe and Backward class in Degree/Diploma course and for inservice candidates and for the total seats available in each group are shown in Annexure-IV.”
In respect of each of the three areas, there is a separate Annexure IV. The Degree and Diploma courses are divided into three disciplines-medicine, surgery and obstetrics and gynaecology. As regards the Osmania /Kakatiya University area medical colleges, the total number of seats available in medicine group is 122, surgery group 62 and obstetrics and gynaecology group 57. Rule 10 concerns with the selection procedure. Sub-rules (3) and (4) are in the following terms:
“(3) The selection committee shall display the charts showing the allocation of seats to SC, ST & BCs in the medical colleges of the University area (local area) at the time of selections.
(4) On the dates notified, the candidates shall be called in order of merit by the selection committee and ask them to opt for subjects of his/her choice in the then available subjects. The selection committee will issue the selection order immediately. The selection will be made only from among the candidates who physically present themselves when their Roll numbers are called out in order of merit.”
N.B. (a) to sub-rule (5) says, “the procedure envisaged in G.0.996 E &S. W Dept. dt. 11-11-1975 will be followed in selecting the candidates.” At the end of the rules, by way of ‘Note’, guidelines are incorporated bearing the heading “Guidelines governing allotment of seats to various categories and service candidates.” Guidelines 1,3 and 5 which are relevant, are as follows:
“1. Subject-wise allotment of seats are made to the various categories. But for selection of candidates for various categories and for service quota group-wise net reservation will be followed. ‘”
2. ………..
3. Seats reserved for BC categories will be allotted to in each sub-category as per the merit.
4. ………….
5. Conversion of seats for maintaining net group reservation will be done after completion of selection to the seats reserved for the respective categories.”
9. It is the contention of Sri C.V. Ramulu, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the University while effecting reservations in favour of the four different groups of Backward Classes has clubbed the seats available for degree and diploma courses, as consequence of which, all the four groups are treated as one unit for the purpose of allotment of seats in different degree and diploma courses to me detriment of candidates belonging to different groups who failed to secure higher marks in the combined merit pool among the backward classes. The rules do not contemplate clubbing of degree and diploma seats for the purpose of effecting reservation. On the other hand, says the learned counsel, the rules enjoin that reservation should be maintained separately in respect of the four different groups among the Backward Classes. As an instance to point out how injustice was done to persons belonging to ‘A’ group of the Backward Classes, Sri Ramulu says mat only two candidates belonging to B.C.’ A’ groups could secure admission to degree courses: candidate with rank No. 81 was admitted to M.S. Orthopaedics and candidate with rank No. 474, who comes under service quota, was given a seat in M.D. Anesthesiology. The rest of the candidates belonging to ‘A’ group were given seats only in Diploma courses in proportion to their quota. Had the reservation been separately done for degree and diploma courses, all the seats earmarked for B.C. ‘A’ group candidates in Degree courses would have been filled by the persons belonging to that particular group.
9. In opposition to this, it is argued by Sri Rama Murthy Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the University of Health Sciences, that there is no warrant for the interpretation sought to be placed on the rules by Sri Ramulu – Counsel for the petitioners. The relevant rules contemplate clubbing of seats in degree and diploma courses and this was done with a view to benefiting the candidates belonging to the backward classes, as otherwise, the seats secured by them would have been far less. The accident of one particular group of people bagging most or all the seats in degree courses in one or two years cannot be a factor to hold that there should be separate reservation for degree and diploma courses in favour of each of the groups among the backward classes.
10. Sri Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the impleaded respondents in W.P.No. 16200 of 1994 says that merit shall be the criterion even among the backward classes in deciding their entitlement for admission to degree and diploma courses. His clients who belong to B.C. ‘B’ group secured ranks 152 and 137 respectively and were admitted to M.D. Gynaecology. If this Court was to interfere with the admissions already made, it would result in a chain reaction causing hardship to several candidates who are not before this Court. He points out that his clients were in no way responsible for the situation that has emerged, even if the contention of Sri C.V. Ramulu is to be accepted. For example, petitioner No. 2 in W.P.M.P.No. 27101 of 1994 (implead party petition) who secured rank No. 137 had several options before her apart from M.D. Gynaecology. Even under the open category, both the petitioners(impleaded respondents) would have secured admission to other courses. If they are to be disturbed now, it is not possible for them to go back to the courses which they would have opted had M.D. Gynaecology not been available to them at the relevant time. The chain reaction that will set in if the plea of the petitioners is to be accepted is not confined only to persons who are made respondents in these writ petitions but it will encompass all the candidates belonging to both reserved and unreserved categories.
11. Sri Lakshma Reddy, learned counsel who is appearing for the five petitioners in W.P.M.P.No. 27188 of 1994 for impleading as respondents in W.P.No. 20814 of 1994, says that the University is following the net group reservation and the merit concept is confined to the Backward Classes as a unit and there is no warrant to hold that the reservation should be separately done with reference to each of the four groups among the Backward Classes. As W.P.No. 20814/94 relates to the entrance test conducted for the academic year 1994-95 and as Sri Lakshma Reddy’s clients are already pursuing Post- Graduate courses for the academic year 1992-93 (second batch), realising the inconsistency, the learned counsel requests that W.P.M.P.No.27188/94 maybe treated as an impleading petition in W.P.No. 16200 of 1994 instead of W.P.No.20814/94. As his request is genuine, we order the same.
12. N.B.(i) to Rule 3, which was already extracted supra, speaks of “separate reservation” in degree and diploma courses in the subjects where the number of seats in degree courses is four or more. If the number is less than four in degree courses, reservation shall be followed in those subjects “after adding the number of seats, if any, in the concerned diploma”. In other words, if the number of seats available in a degree course is less than four, in order to benefit the Backward Classes for the purpose of earmarking the requisite quota in their favour, the rule contemplates clubbing of the diploma seats with the degree seats. For example, if in a degree course, the number of seats available is three, no reservation can be made in favour of the Backward Classes since the quota fixed for Backward Classes is 25% and 25% of three is less than one. If two seats are available in the concerned diploma course, the rule contemplates that the two diploma seats should be clubbed with the three degree seats and out of the aggregate figure of 5,the percentage in favour of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and the Backward Classes should be worked out. While stating so, care is taken in N.B.(1) to point out that the total percentage of reservation -15% 6% and 25% in favour of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes respectively – “on the total number of seats in all the subjects available in each group shall be maintained.” The words “each group” signify the relevant medical groups medicine, surgery and obstetrics and gynaecology.
13. Sri Ramulu’s argument is that once the total number of seats separately to be earmarked in favour of the Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes with reference to their ratio is ascertained, the relevance of N.B.(i) to Rule 3 comes to an end and what comes into play is G.O.Ms.No.996 dated 11-11-1975 as contemplated in N.B. (a) to Sub-rule 5 of Rule 10.
14. We are inclined to accept Sri Ramulu’s contention N.B. (i) to Rule 3 is relevant for the purpose of ascertaining the total number of seats in favour of each of the categories – Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes – in all the subjects available for each group. N.B. (i) enjoins the University to reserve seats separately in degree and diploma courses in favour of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Class candidates. This does not speak of groups among the backward classes. It is only by virtue of N.B.(a) to sub-rule (5) of Rule 10 which speaks of selections, G.O.Ms.No. 996. dated 11-11-1975 assumes relevance. The original G.O.No.1793 Education dated 23-9-1970 by which reservations in favour of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes in medical colleges were created, inter alia, mentions: “a list of candidates will be prepared strictly in the order of merit. From this merit list, selections will be made in the order of rotation specified in Annexure-II for various faculties”. Annexure-II contains the roster under which, in a cycle of 25 vacancies, the 4th seat will go to B.C. ‘A’ group, 10th seat in favour of B.C. Group ‘B’, 14th seat in favour of B.C. Group ‘C, 18th seat in favour of B.C. Group ‘D’ 20th seat in favour of B.C. Group ‘A’ and 24th seat in favour of B.C. Group ‘B’. Because of the practical difficulties involved in following the order of rotation in professional courses, as the number of seats is less and also the preferences among the candidates opting for courses posed complex problems, the government in G.O.Ms.No.996 dated 11-11-1975 dispensed with the rotation system observing that the Osmania University is, preparing a general list on the basis of merit and separate lists for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes “and the same method is more advantageous to the reserved groups because the candidates belonging to these groups who come up for selection in the general list are retained over and above the percentages reserved for them”. The effect of C.O.Ms.No.996 dated 11-111975 dispensing with the rotation system, according to the learned Standing Counsel for the University, must result in the preparation of a single merit list in respect of candidates belonging to the Backward Classes and from out of that merit list, in the order of merit, seats should be allotted to different groups in proportion to the percentage fixed. We cannot accept this contention for the reason that guideline No. 3 to the Rules clearly lays down that “seats reserved for Backward Class categories will be allotted to each sub-category as per merit.” The words “Backward Class categories” clearly imply the four groups – A,B,C,D- among the Backward Classes, and in respect of each of these groups, reservation should be made as per merit. A harmonious reading of guideline No. 3 with N.B. (i) to Rule 3 leads to the conclusion that in respect of seats earmarked for the Backward Classes, there should be separate lists with regard to each of the sub-categories separately in degree and diploma courses. Such a course of action is not impossible although the learned Standing Counsel for the University expressed doubts that in its practical application it is not possible to adhere to such an interpretation. As per the net group reservation in medicine group, the total number of seats in degree and diploma courses earmarked for the Backward Classes is 31. It is not difficult to apportion these 31 seats between the degree and diploma courses- how many should go to the degree courses and how many to diploma/courses. When that is done, the next stage of fixing the number of seats each of the sub-groups is entitled is a routine exercise. But unfortunately this course of action was not followed.
15. While considering the question about relative backwardness among different groups within the Backward Classes, the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217 at 730 held:
“……………..a State may think it advisable to make a categorisation even among other Backward Classes so as to ensure that the more backward among the Backward Classes obtain the benefits intended for them”.
This is the justification for earmarking the seats separately among the different groups within the backward classes.
16. For nearly one decate, the method followed by the University authorities was to club the degree and diploma seats and allot the same in favour of the four separate groups among the Backward Classes, A,B,C, and D, on the basis of merit in the combined merit list. No one has challenged all these years this particular method adopted by the University.
17. The petitioners in W.P.No. 10933 and 16200 of 1994 came out successfully in the entrance test held in June, 1993 and were admitted to diploma and degree courses as per the interpretation placed upon the rule by the University authorities. They did not challenge the action of the University at that time. They have completed fourteen months of different courses of study and as a consequence of the directions given by the Division Bench of this Court as a result of allowing the review petition, their position was further improved. They now seek adjustment of the courses of study, which, according to them, are relatively more important. We are not inclined to accept their request for the reason that it will set in a chain reaction as already stated supra. The persons likely to be displaced now have no option to go back to the courses of study which they would have got had they not been selected. Who are the persons likely to be affected also cannot be ascertained now; the persons to be prejudicially affected if readjustment is to be done now are not only confined to the Backward Classes but also the open competition. For these reasons, although we agree with the contention of the petitioners in the two writ petitions – W.P.Nos.10933 and 16200 of 1994 – with regard to the interpretation of the rule, we are not inclined to grant any relief to them. The two writ petitions accordingly fail and they are dismissed. No costs.
18. W.P.No. 20814 of 1994 which relates to the academic year 1994-95 must succeed since the entrance test was over but selections have not commenced. We, accordingly allow W.P.No.20814 of 1994 with a direction that the seats in favour of the different groups among the Backward Classes – A,B,C and D should be reserved separately in degree and diploma courses in accordance with the interpretation placed upon the rules in this judgment. We make it explicit that if there is any difficulty in working the rules, it is always open to the Government and the University of Health Sciences to make appropriate changes to the rules. No costs.