JUDGMENT
Motilal B. Naik, J.
1. Petitioner seeks a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents 1 to 3 for having granted admission in favour of the fourth respondent in the third respondent-College in the first year B.E., Course as unconstitutional and contrary to admission rules. A consequential direction is also sought to the respondents 1 to 3 to grant admission to the petitioner forthwith in the first year B.E. Course based on her ranking at the EAMCET-1994.
2. Petitioner states that she appeared for the Engineering, Agricultural and Medical Common Entrance Test, 1994 (for short “EAMCET-94”) which was conducted on 22-6-1994.She secured 68.25 marks and she was assigned the rank No. 16551. After the declaration of EAMCET-94 results and allotting ranks to the participants, the second respondent has published a notification through newspapers and also through the media of radio and television informi all the candidates who are desirous of seeking admission to various B.E. Courses in terms of ranking obtained by them in professional colleges including Government Colleges throughout the State of Andhra Pradesh. Petitioner states that two categories of seats are made available to the admission seekers, one category known as “Free Seats” and the other known as “Payment Seats”. The rules governing the conduct of entrance test and the admission thereto are governed by G.O.Ms. No. 184, Education (E.C2) dated 20-8-1993 and subsequent amendments thereto. The rules governing the conduct of common entrance test and filling up of the seats in the professional Courses an commonly known as “Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission into under-graduate Professional Courses through Common Entrance Test) Rules, 1993.”
3. According to the petitioner, she had claimed seat in B.E. Course against “Payment Seats” available for women in Andhra Region. Petitioner claims that as per rules in force, after the EAMCET-94 results are announced and the ranking being allotted and intimated to respective successful candidates, applications are invited only from the qualified candidates as against the seats available in various faculties throughout the State of Andhra Pradesh which includes “Free Seats” and also “Payment Seats”. In the application, options were also to be indicated by the students as to the claim of seat under the category of “Free Seats” or Payment Seat.Petitioner, realising that according to her ranking, she would be eligible to obtain a seat under “Payment Seats” category, had indicated her intention in the application to this effect. After the applications being scrutinised by the Convener, interviews are held, i.e., commonly known as “Counselling” by the competent authority. As against the “Free Seats”, various dates were announced for counselling and the seats were allotted to the eligible students who were cleared. The second phase of Counselling started for consideration of applications against the “Payment Seats”. Petitioner states that Counselling for filling up the “Payment Seats” was held in six phases and the sixth and final phase for granting admission against “payment seats for O.C. Women category in Andhra University area was held on 27-11-1994 at 2.30 p.m. at J.N.T.U., Hyderabad Candidates whose ranking ranging from 13701 to 16600 were called for interview against “Payment Seats” for OC Women category in Andhra University Area. The petitioner who has obtained the rank of 16551 appeared on 27-11-1994 before the Convener, EAMCET-94 at Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad. The petitioner had also obtained a crossed demand draft drawn in favour of the Convener for a sum of Rs.26,250/- for the purpose of offering the same in case if the petitioner gets admission in the “Payment Seats” category. Petitioner claims that only 15 students attended the sixth phase of admissions on 27-11 -1994. But in view of the limited seats available, by the time the petitioner’s turn came, she could not get any seat. Petitioner states that the fourth respondent being a lesser rank holder than the petitioner, has been given admission in the third respondent-College in Production Engineering discipline on 18-1-1995. Admission of the fourth respondent in the third respondent-College, it is alleged by the petitioner, is contrary to rules governing the entire process of holding EAMCET-94 and admission as contemplated in G.O.Ms. No. 184, dated 20-8-1993.His further a alleged that the fourth respondent had not come through the sixth and final phase of Counselling which was held on27-ll-1994 conducted by the Convener, EAMCET-94 at J.N.T.U., Hyderabad and yet, she is given admission in the third respondent-College contrary to rules. Petitioner further states that according to Rule 7(13) of the “Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission into undergraduate Professional Courses through Common Entrance Test) Rules, 1933” the competent authority has to prepare a waiting list for granting admission in any casual seats arising on account of drop-outs or on any other account, to those candidates whose names are found in the waiting list. The managements of the private colleges have no authority to invite applications and grant admission to any student of their choice. The fourth respondent whose rank is far less than the petitioner and who had not even appeared for the sixth and final phase of Counselling is not entitled to obtain any seat in any College. Therefore, petitioner contends that ignoring the case of the petitioner, granting admission in the third respondent-College to the fourth respondent is contrary to admission rules and therefore, seeks to set aside the admission granted to the fourth respondent and a consequential direction to Respondents 1 to 3 to grant admission to the petitioner in the third respondent-College if necessary by creating a supernumerary seat, in the circumstances of the case.
4. As against these contentions, all the four respondents have filed separate counters.
5. The first respondent who is the Chairman, Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education, in the counter filed by him has stated in para-2 that through proceedings dated 13-7-1994, he addressed a letter to the Vice Chancellor, Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad (who is the Chairman of Entrance Test Committee) authorising him to finalise the admissions of candidates into Engineering Colleges in Andhra Pradesh based on the ranking lists of EAMCET-94. He further stated that the Vice-Chancellor of J.N.T.U., Hyderabad has been instructed to follow the procedure indicated in G.O.Ms.No. 184, dated 20-8-1993, while delegating powers on this purpose and as such he cannot be held responsible for any alleged irregularities committed by other respondents.
6. The second respondent who is the Convener of EAMCET has filed a separate counter admitting the fact of holding of the final phase of the Counselling on 27-11-1994 and the last rank which was given admission on that day was 16247 against “Payment Seats” in favour of OC Women candidate of Andhra University Area. The second respondent further states that as per the procedure contemplated in G.O.Ms. No. 184, admissions were closed by the Convener on 8-12-1994. The Managements/Principals were directed to notify . any vacancies that may arise after closure of admission in news papers and offer such seats to the candidates directly according to ranking and merit obtained by them. It is further stated that through letter dated 4-1-1995, the Convener has specifically mentioned that all women candidates of Andhra University local area below the rank of 16247 shall be called to meet the Principals of respective private colleges on a given date. According to the second respondent, the third respondent-College has given such notification on 9-1-1995 which was ‘ published on 12-1-1995 calling for OC women candidates from Andhra University area above the rank of 16247 requiring them to meet the Principal on 18-1-1995 and register their names if they are interested in the vacancies. Though applications were invited by the third respondent, as the petitioner failed to appear before the principal on 18-1-1995 to register her name, the case of the petitioner was not considered. According to the second respondent, had the petitioner responded to the notification issued in the news paper on 12-1-1995, she would have got the admission in the third respondent-College. Therefore, it is contended that having not responded to the notification, it is not open to the petitioner to blame the respondents. The second respondent has also justified the action taken by the third respondent in this behalf. He is categorical as to any requirement obliging the preparation of waiting list as alleged by the petitioner and denies existence of any rules which contemplates preparation of waiting list to accommodate the candidates in future casual vacancies. The third respondent-College has filed a separate counter. In para-4 of its counter, it is stated that no waiting list was ever communicated to the third respondent-College by the second respondent so as to enable the third respondent-College to know the number of candidates in waiting for a seat falling vacant on account of drop-outs. In fact, it is categorically stated in the counter at para-4 that the Convener, Eamcet-94 through his letter dated 4-1-1995 has intimated the third respondent prescribing the procedure for filling up the vacancies after closure of admission and accordingly, the vacancies were notified in the newspapers fixing 18-1-1995 as the date for such of those candidates who are interested to seek admission in the third respondent-College. It is stated that the fourth respondent, pursuant to the notification issued by the third respondent in the newspapers, appeared before the third respondent on 18-1-1995 and registered her name and therefore, her name was considered for granting admission though she has obtained lesser rank than the petitioner. It is further contended that there is no illegality or violation of any rules as alleged by the petitioner while granting admission to the fourth respondent.
7. The fourth respondent who is the beneficiary and who got admission in the third respondent-College has also filed a separate counter, inter alia contending that as per the notification issued by the third respondent-College, she responded to the same and appeared before the Principal of the third respondent-College on 18-1-1995 and registered her name and her name was rightly considered on that date for admission. She categorically states that there is no violation whatsoever in granting admission to her in the third respondent-College. The fourth respondent has further stated that among the candidates who had registered their names with the third respondent-College, she being the highest rank-holder, was rightly granted admission.
8. I have heard Sri N. Rama Mohana Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri T.S. Haranath, learned Counsel for the first respondent, Sri R. Subhash Reddy, learned Counsel for the second respondent Sri C. Kodanda Ram, learned Counsel for the third respondent and Sri Y. Jagan Mohan, learned Counsel for the fourth respondent, at length.
9. In the wake of the respective contentions by the parties the only question which falls for consideration before this Court is whether granting of admission to the fourth respondent in the third respondent-College is contrary to rules governing the admissions and whether the petitioner is entitled for admission in the third respondent-College?
10. For the purpose of resolving this controversy, it is necessary to examine the relevant rules governing the conduct of EAMCET examination and admissions thereto.
11. The procedure contemplated for this purpose is governed by G.O.Ms. No. l84, Education (E.C2), dated 20-8-1993. The rules governing the conduct of common entrance test and filling up of the seats in the professional Courses are known as Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission into under-graduate Professional Courses through Common Entrance Test) Rules, 1993 (for short “the Rules, 1993”).
12. Rule 2(b) of the said Rules defines ‘Chairman’ as Vice-Chancellor of any University in the State or the Principal of the Regional Engineering College, warangal as the case may as nominated by the State Council of Higher Education for each academic year for the purpose of conducting the Common Entrance Test.
13. Rule 2(c) of the said Rules defines ‘Committee’ as the Committee , empowered to conduct the common Entrance Test and to prepare the list of candidates in the order of marks obtained in the Entrance Test basing on which admissions into various Courses will be made.
14. Rule 2(e) defines ‘competent authority’ as the Chairman of the Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education in respect of Engineering and Agricultural Sciences and the Vice-Chancellor, University of Health Sciences in respect of Medical Courses, who will make admissions into the respective professional Institutions in the State.
15. Rule 2(g) of the said Rules defines ‘Convener’ as the Authority/Officer appointed by the State Council of Higher Education for conducting the Common Entrance Test and other functions relating to the said examinations as entrusted to him by the State Council, in consultation with the Chairman, nominated to conduct the Entrance Test.
16. Rule 3 of the said Rules governs the Method of Admission.
17. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 postulates the Principals of Private Professional Institutions shall admit candidates as allotted by the Competent Authority in terms of Rule 7.
18. Rule 7 of the said Rules postulates the procedure for admission into Government/University Professional Colleges/Regional Engineering Colleges and Private Professional Colleges.
19. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 provides that no Private Professional College shall call for application for admission separately or individually.
20. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 7 postulates that the Competent authority shall scrutinise 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 in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 6, shall prepare two categories of merit lists, 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.
21. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 7 provides that the seats in all the Private Professional Institutions shall be pooled up course-wise and distributed among the three local 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 seats shall be “Payment Seats”. 10% “Payment Seals” (i.e., 5% of total intake) in each branch shall be reserved for Non-Resident Indians (N.R.Is.).
22. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 7 provides that the 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 Courses/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 the availability at the point of time with due regard to the eligibility of the candidate for a seat in a particular local area for a particular reserved category.
23. Sub-rule (10) of Rule 7 provides that the Competent Authority shall give atleast ten days time to all the candidates after the “Free Seats” in Private Professional Institutions are filled up to opt to be admitted against the “Payment Seats” (so that the candidate shall deposit the fees in the Bank for the academic year in favour of the Competent Authority who shall transfer the same in favour of the appropriate college).
24. Sub-rule (11) of Rule 7 contemplates that the Competent Authority shall select and allot the candidates for admission into various courses for the “Payment Seats” in Private Professional Institutions as per merit from among the applications who have exercised their option prescribed in Sub-rule (10).
25. Sub-rule (12) of Rule 7 provides that the candidates admitted in Private Professional Colleges against the “Payment Seats” shall pay at the admission time the fee charged by the management for the whole course divided by the number of years of the course subject to a ceiling prescribed by the Government.
26. Sub-rule (13) of Rule 7 provides that after completion of this stage of admissions, the Competent Authority shall prepare a waiting list of the candidates based on the EAMCET ranking and publish the same along with the marks obtained by them in the EAMCET. The said list shall be adopted by the Competent Authority for filling up of casual vacancies or drop out vacancies arising after the above stage of payment seats admissions are finalised. These vacancies shall be filled by the Competent Authority until such date as may be prescribed. Any vacancy still remaining after such date can be filled by management from the above Waiting List Only. The Competent Authority, upto the above mentioned cut off date and the management after the said cut off date, shall observe the principle of merit, rules of reservation and other prescribed norms including notification in the popular newspapers while making the admissions from the Waiting List.
27. The above rules refer to the procedure that has to be followed by the concerned authorities while making admissions to various colleges on the basis of the ranking obtained by each candidate at the common entrance test.
28. Rule 9 of the said Rules contemplated under G.O.Ms. No. l84 provides for Constitution and functions of the Entrance Test Committee. The Committee constituted for conducting the Entrance Test shall consist of the following members:
(a) Chairman, who shall be the Vice-Chancellor of any University or the Principal, Regional Engineering College, Warangal, as the case may be, as nominated by the State Council of Higher Education for each academic year for the purpose of conducting the Entrance Test.
(b) One representative of each of the Universities to be nominated by the concerned Vice-Chancellor.
(c) One representative of the Regional Engineering College, Warangal to be nominated by the Principal, Regional Engineering College, Warangal.
(d) the Director of Technical Education, Andhra Pradesh or his nominee not below the rank of a Joint Director.
(e) The Director of Medical Education, Andhra Pradesh, or his nominee not below the rank of a Joint Director.
(f) One member to be nominated by the State Council of Higher Education.
(g) Convenor of the Common Entrance Test for the preceding year.
(h) Convenor who should be of the rank of the Professor to be nominated by the State Council of Higher Education in consultation with the Chairman of the Common Entrance Test Committee.
(i) One Principal of a Private Engineering College, to be nominated by the State Council, every year by turn.
29. Rule 9(2)(b)(i) deals with the powers of the Chairman of the Entrance Test Committee. It provides that the Chairman of the Committee shall preside over the meeting of the Committee. In the absence of the Chairman at the meeting, he may nominate one of the members to preside over the Committee Meetings.
30. Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) provides that the Chairman of the Committee shall be the competent authority to appoint paper setters and moderators for the entrance test and to decide upon the printing press or presses at which the papers are to be got printed.
31. Sub-rule (sic. Clause) (c) of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 deals with the functions of the Convenor. It provides that the Convenor shall, subject to such directions as may be issued by the Chairman, discharge his duties in connection with the Entrance Test. He shall be responsible for discharging the following functions:
(i) ……………
(ii) …………..
(iii) ……………
(iv) ……………
(v) ……………
(vi) ……………
(vii) ……………
(viii) ……………
(ix) ……………
(x) Selecting candidates for admission into Private Institutions.
32. For the purpose of convenience, the rules are to be read in two parts. Rules 2 to 8 contemplate the method to be followed while selecting the candidates for admission besides preparing waiting list. Rule 9 governs only with the Constitution and functioning of the Entrance Test Committee.
33. As provided in Rule 7(13), the Competent Authority shall prepare a waiting list of candidates based on EAMCET ranking and publish the same along with marks obtained by them in EAMCET. The said list shall be adopted by the Competent Authority for filling up of casual vacancies or drop-out vacancies arising after the stage of admissions to “Payment Seats” are finalised. The rule further makes it clear that the admissions by the Private Colleges shall only be made from the candidates drawn from the Waiting List.
34. Sub-rule (10) of Rule 7 makes it clear that the Competent Authority shall give atleast ten days time to all the candidates after the “Free Seats” in Private Professional Institutions are filled up to be opted for admission against the “Payment Seats”. This rule enables such of those candidates who are eager to obtain a seat even on payment basis. A time of ten days has also been given to them to opt for “Payment Seats”.
35. The Competent Authority referred to in Rule 7 of the Rules as defined under Sub-clause (e) of Rule 2 means the Chairman of Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education in respect of Engineering and Agricultural Sciences and the Vice-Chancellor, University of Health Sciences for medical Courses.
36. For the purpose of this Writ Petition, the first respondent is the Competent Authority. The duties and functions of the first and second respondents are specified in the rules. Sub-rule (13) of Rule 7 as indicated above, makes it abundantly clear that after completion of admissions to payment seats, a waiting list has to be prepared by the first respondent and that list has to be adopted for filling up of casual vacancies. This rule, as a matter of fact, requires the first respondent to prepare a waiting list in accordance with the provisions and has to be necessarily adopted for the purpose of filling up the drop-out or casual vacancies. This means, any casual or drop-out vacancy arising after completion of the admission to “Payment Seats”, has to be necessarily filled up by the candidates drawn from the waiting list only on the basis of merit.
37. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 13 provides for an interview to be held for those candidates who have secured highest ranks at the entrance test in the order of merit for selecting and allotting them according to their merit to the Courses and to the respective Colleges in the presence of the representatives of the respective colleges being present on the date of interview. This interview in common parlance is known as “Counselling”.
38. In the case on hand, the petitioner who had opted for “payment seat” meant for women under OC category of Andhra region appeared in the sixth and final phase of counselling on 27-11-1994 at J.N.T.U., Hyderabad. Though the petitioner appeared for Counselling on 27-11-1994, on account of limited seats the petitioner and another student could not be accommodated. However, the petitioner hoped that she would get a seat in Andhra region in the event of any drop-out or casual vacancy arising in future. To the shock and surprise of the petitioner, she came to know that the fourth respondent has been given admission in the third respondent-College despite the fourth respondent obtaining a far lesser rank i.e., 17229 than the petitioner in EAMCET-94. Above all, the fourth respondent has not been invited to participate in the sixth and final phase of Counselling held on 27-11-1994. She could not do so as the candidates who were asked to appear for Counselling on the sixth and final phase are in ranks from 13701 to 16600. The last rank-holder who obtained seat under the “payment seats” on the sixth and final phase of Counselling is 16247.
39. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 7 contemplates the interviews, what is known as “Counselling” for the purpose of scrutiny and granting admission to the students according to their ranking and availability of seats basing on zonal and other reservations. Candidates who have secured higher ranks are only called for Counselling.
40. Sub-rule (13) of Rule 7, as indicated above, contemplates preparation of waiting list by the Competent Authority who is none other than the first respondent, after the completion of admission to “Payment Seats” also. The drop-out and casual vacancies would be filled up only by such candidates whose names figure in the waiting list as prepared by the Competent Authority, i.e., the first respondent herein. The waiting list would be prepared from out of the remaining candidates who could not get admission even after exhausting payment seats. The necessary implication, therefore, is only qualified candidates are eligible to seek admission in terms of Rule 7(1) and thereafter in terms of Rule 7(4), the Competent Authority shall scrutinise the applications and prepare two lists (a) and (b) as indicated in Rule 7(4). The candidates drawn from (a) and (b) lists are only called for interview/Counselling according to their merit as provided in Rule 7(6) for finalising admissions.
41. In the present case, respondents 1 and 2 have not placed any material before this Court to show any such waiting list has been prepared. On the contrary, the first respondent who is entrusted with the entire process of selections and admission of the candidates according to their ranks pursuant to declaration of EAMCET-94 results, comes out with a statement that he addressed a letter dated 13-7-1994 to the Vice-Chancellor, J.N.T.U., Hyderabad who is the Chairman of the Entrance Test Committee authorising him to finalise the admissions of the students into Engineering Colleges in Andhra Pradesh State basing on the ranking obtained by them in EAMCET-94. The first respondent has not placed any provisions or rules which enable him to delegate his powers to the Vice-Chancellor, J.N.T.U., Hyderabad for finalisation of admissions. In the absence of any rules being placed before this Court, I am of the view, the act of the first respondent in divesting his powers to the Vice Chancellor, J.N.T.U., Hyderabad is without authority.
42. Conducting of Entrance Test is entrusted to an Entrance Test Committee constituted for this purpose as indicated in Rule 9 of the said Rules. The Entrance Test Committee is headed by a Chairman who is either the Vice Chancellor of any University or the Principal of Regional Engineering College, Warangal as the case may be, as nominated by the State Council of Higher Education for each academic year. Therefore, what follows from these rules is that the supreme authority is vested with the State Council of Higher Education headed by Chairman, the first respondent herein. As the entire process of conducting the entrance test and admissions thereof is vested with the first respondent, the first respondent cannot divest and delegate his power to somebody who has not shown any concern in this regard. Even assuming for a moment that the first respondent has authority to delegate some of his functions to others, that itself is not a ground for him to say that he is not responsible for the acts of omission and commission of the persons authorised to do a particular job. This is one such case which discloses lack of accountability on the part of the first respondent.
43. The functions of the Chairman has been defined in Rule 9(2)(b)(i)(ii) of the said Rules. They are very specific. There is nothing in these functions assigned to the Chairman that he shall be responsible for the admissions of the candidates also after the Entrance Test is completed. As I said earlier, in view of the specific functions of the Chairman, Entrance Test Committee enumerated in Rule 9(2)(b)(i)(ii) of the Rules, the first respondent cannot, in the absence of any specific provisions which enables him to delegate his responsibilities entrust the job of finalising admissions to Engineering Faculty to the Chairman, Entrance Test Committee.
44. The Convener is defined under Clause (g) of Rule 2 as the Authority/ Officer appointed by the State Council of Higher Education for conducting the Common Entrance Test and for other functions relating to the said examination as entrusted to him by the State Council in consultation with the Chairman nominated to conduct the Entrance Test. Rule 9(2){c) deals with the functions of the Convener of the Committee. It provides that he shall also be responsible for one of the functions assigned to the Convener under Clause 10 of Rule 9(2)(c) as selecting the candidates for admission into private institutions. Whereas, the Chairman, Entrance Test Committee has not been empowered under the rules to do other than the job which is assigned to him in terms of Rule 9(2)(b)(i)(ii). Therefore, the stand that the first respondent has delegated his powers to the Chairman, Entrance Test Committee for the purpose of discharging the duties which he is required to do, in my view, is without authority. Once a person is entrusted with such responsibility dealing with the entire process of selections and admissions to the candidates according to their ranking in EAMCET Examination, It is pathetic that the first respondent comes up with this plea before the Court that he has delegated his powers to others and is not at all responsible for any acts.
45. Coming to the stand of the second respondent that rules do not provide for preparation or a waiting list, I am afraid, the stand is not realistic and is not in accordance with Sub-rule (13) of Rule 7. Sub-rule (13) of Rule 7, as indicated above, makes it very clear that a waiting list has to be prepared after the admissions into “Payment Seats” are over and all the drop-out and casual vacancies are to be filled up, by drawing the candidates from such waiting list. The endeavour of the second respondent that there is no contemplation of preparation of a waiting list, discloses the hollowness of the second respondent and reflects on the callousness with which these authorities who are entrusted with the entire process of selections and granting admissions to professional courses pursuant to EAMCET-94 are acting. Rule 7(1) provides for inviting applications from eligible candidates. Rule 7(4) provides for scrutiny and preparing two lists of eligible candidates. Rule 7(6) provides for interview/ Counselling according to merit of the candidates and admissions are granted on the date of interview.
46. The rules governing the holding of entrance test and subsequent granting of admissions are governed by G.O.Ms. No. 184. The rules have statutory force and are framed under a statute and therefore, the rules assume significance and have to be necessarily followed and any violation of these rules can be challenged in a Court of law. In the facts on hand, I have no hesitation to hold that respondents 1 to 3 have violated the rules while granting admission to Respondent No. 4. Surprisingly, the second respondent has justified the action of the third respondent by contending that the admission given to the fourth respondent is proper. The provisions contemplated in Sub-rule (13) of Rule 7 become redundant in the absence of any list of eligible candidates prepared according to Rule 7(4). As I said earlier, from out of the list prepared, admissions are granted to candidates according to merit list in terms of the provisions contemplated in Rule 7(6), such of those who could not get admission even in “Payment Seats” the Competent Authority shall prepare a waiting list as per Rule 7(13) and drop-out or casual vacancies have to be filled by drawing candidates from the waiting list only.
47. The submission that the third respondent has notified casual vacancies according to the instructions issued by the second respondent on 4-1-1995 to various institutions directing them to notify the vacancies in newspapers and pursuant to which the third respondent has issued notification inviting applications, the petitioner having failed to respond to the said notification and cannot have any say at this point of time, in my view, has no significance at all. As I said earlier, the requirement of Sub-rule (13) of Rule 7 of the Rules, that a waiting list has to be prepared to fill the drop-out or casual vacancies, in the absence of any waiting list, issuance of any notification in newspapers by the third respondent-College under the instructions of the second respondent is illegal inasmuch as it has no authority to do so as Sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 prohibits private colleges from calling applications. Even otherwise, the sixth and final phase of Counselling was held on 27-11-1994. Candidates called for participating in the sixth phase of Counselling under OC women category from Andhra Area were from the ranks of 13701 to 16600. According to the respondents, the last rank-holder who got admission is 16247 in Andhra Area. If the assertions of the second respondent that pursuant to the instructions issued by him to various institutions on 4-1-1995 including the third respondent-College entitling them to invite applications for drop-out vacancies from eligible candidates are to be accepted, the third respondent College should have called for applications from the students upto the rank ‘of 16600 only, that being the last rank which was invited for Counselling on 27-11-1994. From the notification issued by the third respondent which has appeared in “Eenadu” telugu daily on 12-1-1995, it is evident that the applications were invited from the interested candidates who qualified in EAMCET-94 and have ranks lower than the last rank admitted by the Convener under the above categories i.e., 5761, 16247 and 21650 respectively. The seeking of applications from the candidates upto the rank of 21650 is an illegality in itself as the third respondent cannot invite applications from the rank-holders whose ranking is beyond 16600 as 16600 being the last rank invited for Counselling on 27-11-1994.
48. Admittedly, the rank of the fourth respondent is 17229. When the fourth respondent was not even entitled to participate in Counselling on 27-11-1994 as the last rank for Counselling on that day being 16600, granting admission to the fourth respondent who was not even eligible for scrutiny/Counselling on 27-11-1994, is illegal and contrary to rules. The submissions of the respondents 2 and 3 that the petitioner having not responded to the notification issued by the third respondent on 12-1-1995 cannot make a hue and cry now, is not acceptable to this Court as the act of inviting applications by the third respondent on the instructions of the second respondent is a nullity and contrary to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 of the Rules which prohibits private professional Colleges from calling applications for admissions separately or individually.
49. Had the competent authority prepared a waiting list as required under Sub-rule (13) of Rule 7, and published the same along with the marks obtained by them in EAMCET-94 after the admissions to “Payment Seats” are completed and had that list being adopted by the competent authority for filling up of casual or drop-out vacancies, the petitioner would have secured admission in the third respondent-College in place of the fourth respondent as her rank being 16551. who attended the Counselling on 27-l 1-1994. The rules so framed obliges the respondents to fill up the casual or drop-out vacancies only from the Waiting List.
50. A reading of the provisions in G.O.Ms. No. 184 issued for the purpose of conducting the Entrance Test and the admissions thereafter, and the stand taken by the respondents in general and respondents 1 and 2 in particular, I have no doubt in my mind to hold that the respondents 1 and 2 have failed to discharge their statutory functions entrusted to them in this behalf and failed to check the anomalies arising out of the excessive anxiety shown either by the students or by the institutions. This Court understands that the intention with which the present Rules are made governing the entire process is to provide a fool-proof method, providing checks and balances, giving no scope for any short-comings. The stand now taken by the first and second respondents in particular, is an indication as to how the system is functioning and calls for an urgent look at the system, lest it may reach a point of no return, may have telling repercussions on the student community at large. Perhaps, people may also loose confidence in the entire selection process.
51. In the counter filed by the fourth respondent, it has been stated that as per the instructions issued by the second respondent dated 4-1-1995, not only the third respondent-College but also other Professional Institutions have also issued similar notifications and have filled up the drop-out or casual vacancies. If that is so, any admissions contrary to Sub-rule (13) of Rule 7, made against drop-out or casual vacancies, pursuant to the instructions issued by the second respondent dated 4-1-1995, become a nullity. Since the other institutions are not before this Court, who seemed to have granted admissions to students against drop-out or casual vacancies pursuant to the instructions issued by the second respondent dated 4-1-1995, I am not inclined to make any observations against such institutions.
52. Having regard to the above discussion, I hold that the admission granted to the fourth respondent in the third respondent-College is contrary to the rules contemplated in this behalf. Accordingly, the admission of the fourth respondent in the third respondent-College is set aside.
53. Having held that the admission granted to the fourth respondent in the third respondent-College is bad, what is the relief the petitioner is entitled to?
54. The learned Counsel for the fourth respondent submitted that if the Court comes to the conclusion that the admission of the fourth respondent in the third respondent-College is bad and violative of the Rules, the fourth Respondent cannot be punished for the mistakes committed by the other respondents. The argument looks to be reasonable and probable in the circumstances of the case. But this Court cannot continue the benefit granted to the fourth respondent by the third respondent in the circumstances, when this Court holds that the admission granted to the fourth respondent is bad and contrary to rules. Therefore, the submission of the learned Counsel is rejected. When the fourth respondent is not at all entitled to get admission according to her ranking, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to accommodate the fourth respondent by creating a supernumerary vacancy, is not proper and Court cannot issue such a direction. The admissions are strictly according to merit and ranking and as per the merit list prepared according to Rule 7(4) of the Rules. Any deviation would only annul the rules contemplated in this regard.
55. Since there were some drop-out/casual vacancies after completion of Counselling on 27-11-1994 in which the petitioner had participated and her rank being 16551, the third respondent-College having granted admission to the fourth respondent in the available casual vacancy whose rank being 17229, I am of the view, the petitioner is entitled for a seat in the third respondent-College in place of the fourth respondent.
56. Accordingly, a Writ of Mandamus shall issue to the respondents 1 to 3 to grant admission to the petitioner in the third respondent-College, forthwith. The petitioner shall comply with all other requirements as are necessary and the third respondent-College shall admit the petitioner and permither to prosecute her B.E. first year Course. The fourth respondent is entitled for refund of the fees paid by her to the third respondent-College consequent upon her admission.
57. The Writ Petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs.
58. Before parting with this case, I may state that an authority empowered to function under a statute while exercising power, discharges public duty. It has to act to subserve general confidence. In discharging this duty honestly, a bona fide loss may accrue to any person. But where the duty is performed capriciously or the exercise of power results in agony, the responsible shall not be left alone. In a modern society, no authority can arrogate to itself the power to act in a manner which is arbitrary. It is unfortunate that matters of this magnitude, concerning the holding of Entrance Test and granting of admission to professional courses, the authorities under the statute, failed to discharge public duty on one pretext or the other by throwing the ball on other’s Court. Even in ordinary matters, a common man who has neither the physical backing nor the financial strength, to match the inaction in public-oriented department, gets frustrated and it erodes the credibility in the system. Public Administration, no doubt, involves a vast amount of administrative discretion which shields the action of the administrative authority but where it is found that exercise of such power is not in tune with the requirement, the authority cannot claim to be under protective cover. It is therefore, necessary for the Government to examine the entire issue in right perspective, if necessary by appointing a committee to go into the whole process connected with EAMCET-94 examination and admissions of the rank-holders after filling up of the vacancies under “Payment Seats” after the last phase of Counselling which was held on 27-11-1994. If any anomalies are detected, it is open to the Government to suitably rectify them, if possible, and ensure such anomalies do not repeat at least from the EAMCET Examination 1995.
59. Office to communicate a copy of this Order to the Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, immediately.