ORDER
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.
1. These writ petitions raise a common question, namely, whether the respondents 1 and 2 are bound to implement G.O.Ms. No. 172 dt. 11-5-1989 and provide 30% reservation for women candidates for admission in First Year LL.B. Course in the academic year, 1990-91, so these writ petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.
2. In exercise of the power conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 3 read with Section 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 (for short ‘the Act’), the Governor of Andhra Pradesh issued the Andhra Pradesh Institutions of Law (Regulation of admissions into courses in Law through Common Entrance Test) Rules, 1989, (for short ‘the Rules’). These rules apply to all the colleges including those established and administered by the minority communities, imparting legal education. Rule 10 of the said rules provides for reservation of seats in all institutions including private institutions. Rule 10 (4) of the Rules (numbered as 10 (3) in Gazette Publication of the Rules) provides reservation of 30% of the seats in each course in favour of women candidates.
3. The grievance of the petitioners in these writ petitions, who are aspiring for admission in LL.B. I Year Course, is that this rule of reservation is not given effect to by respondents 1 and 2 at the time of selection and admission of candidates in the First Year LL.B. Course in the Evening College of Law. They, therefore, seek a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to follow the rule of reservation contained in G.O.Ms. No. 172 dated 11-5-1989 and to admit the petitioners therein.
4. Respondents 1 and 2 filed a counter-affidavit stating inter alia that whether there should be reservation for women candidates in University College of Law is a matter of policy decision to be taken by the University and no candidate can seek a writ of mandamus directing the University to make reservation in favour of women candidates in the law colleges of the University. The reservation is a matter of concession which cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is stated that Article 15 (3) of the Constitution of India and Section 6 (2) of the Osmania University Act are only enabling provisions. Unless rules or regulations are framed by the University providing reservation for women candidates, no woman candidate is entitled to reservation. It is further stated that the rules contained in the said G.O. provide that subject to permissibility in the rules and regulations of adimission of respective Universities, 30% of the seats in each course in each institution shall be reserved in favour of women candidates. The rules of Osmania University do not permit any separate reservation for women candidates. They are considered for admission as per the general merit at the entrance test subject to statutory reservation, as such the petitioners cannot claim any reservation. It is averred that so far the University has not taken any decision to reserve seats for women candidate and in the absence of any rules and regulations, the petitioners are not entitled to have their cases considered against 30% seats in LL.B. I Year Course. In the circumstances, it is prayed that the writ petitions may be dismissed.
5. Messrs. Narasaiah, Nalin Kumar and Kannabhiran, who argued on behalf of the petitioners, submit that Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Rules which provides for reservation for women is applicable to the University and, therefore, the University is bound to consider the cases of the petitioners in the reserved quota by providing 30% reservation for women. It is further submitted that not providing reservation in the rules of admission by the University cannot be claimed as a ground to deny the benefit of the rule of reservation to the petitioners.
6. Sri Mohan Rao, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, contends that Section 6 (2) of the Osmania University Act enables the University to make reservation in respect of its colleges and Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the said Act empowers the State to make reservations in respect of Government colleges. As no reservation is made for women candidates so far by the University, the petitioners, to obtain admission in University College of law, are not entitled to claim benefit of rule of reservation in Rule 10 (4) of the Rules made by the Governor. He further submits that the Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Rules provides that the rule of reservation is subject to permissibility on the rules and regulations of admission of the respective Universities and as in the existing rules, there is no provision for reservation of seats in favour of the women candidates, the petitioners cannot claim reservation of the seats under the said rule.
7. It may be noted that Article 46 of the Constitution, which is one of the Directive Principles of State Policy, enjoins that the State shall promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people and, in particular, of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation. It cannot be disputed that in our society, women are still the weaker section of the society and their economic and educational interests are required to be protected by the State. Article 15 of the Constitution prohibits discrimination on the ground of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. Clause (3) of this Article, which as an exception to Clauses (1) and (2), rule against discrimination, provides for protective discrimination in favour of women and children. This clause declares that Article 13 shall not prevent the State from making any special provision for women. Apropos to the constitutional mandate and enabling provisions of Clause (3) of Article 15 of the Constitution, exercising the power conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act, the Governor of Andhra Pradesh framed the aforesaid Rules viz., A.P. Institutions of Law (Regulations of admissions into course in Law through Common Entrancte Test) Rules, 1989. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 which is relevant for our purpose reads as follows :
“10 (4) Reservation of seats for Women :
(a) Subject to permissibility in the rules and regulations of admission of the respective Universities, 30% of the seats in each Course in each Institution shall be reserved in favour of Women Candidates from all categeries, i.e., Open Competition, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes Groups ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’ and Army Quota. This rule of reservation shall not be applicable if women candidates selected on merit in each category form 30% or more of the seats there. When the number of women candidates falls short of this percentage, it would be made up by replacing the last selected male candidates by women candidates in that category ;
(b) In the absence of suitable women candidates the seats shall be filled in with men candidates”.
8. A perusal of the above rule shows that 30% of the seats in each category in each institution is reserved in favour of women candidates from all categories i.e., Open Competition, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes Groups ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C, ‘D’, and Army Quota. If the women candidates selected on merit into any category are 30% or more, the rule of reservation does not apply. If the women candidates selected on merit fall short of 30% the shortage is made up by replacing the last selected male candidates by women candidates in that particular category. Where there are no women candidates in a particular category to be selected for admission in that category, Sub-rule (2) permits filling up of the seats by men candidates.
9. It will be apposite to read here Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 6 of the Osmania University Act which are as follows :
“6 (2) the University may reserve seats in any University college or Constituent College for Women or memhers of educationally backward classes or allot seats on such regional basis of the University area as may be declared by the University ;
(3) the Government may reserve seats in colleges under their management for women or members of educationally backward classes or allot seats as such regiona basis of the State as may be declared by the Government”.
10. From a perusal of the above sub-sections, it is evident that Sub-section (2) gives power to the University to frame rules reserving seats in any University, College or constituent college for women or members of educationally backward classes, or allot seats on such regional basis of the University area as may be declared by the University, whereas Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the said Act enables the Government to reserve seats in colleges under their management for women or members of educationally backward classes or allot seats on such regional basis of the State as may be declared by the Government. Therefore, the Government cannot provide reservation of seats in University colleges. But the rule now sought to be implemented by the petitioners is not framed by the Governor under Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Osmania University Act. It has already been noticed that the said Rules are made under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 read with Section 15 of the Act. In the said Act, in Section 2 (f), the term “institution” is defined in the following words :
“2 (f) “Institution” means, unless otherwise specifically mentioned ail the Colleges, including those administered by the Minority Communities and those declared as State-wide Institutions, if any, imparting legal education (L.L.B. and B.L. Courses) either exclusively in Law Colleges or as a Course in a Degree College etc.”
A reading of the above definition shows that the said Act is applicable to University Colleges also. Therefore, the above rules issued by the Governor are binding on the University and respondents 1 and 2 are bound to implement the same.
11. The learned Standing Counsel, however, submits that as no rules have been framed by the University Under Section 6 (2) of the Osmania University Act, as such Rule 10 (4) of the Rules cannot be implemented by the University. This contention was negatived by a Division Bench of this court in its judgment dated 31st March, 1990 in W.P. No. 16360 of 1989.
The Bench observed as follows :
“The mere fact that they have not framed any rules or regulations is no answer to the contention that 30% of seats should be reserved for women”
12. Now I shall take up the second contention of the learned Standing Counsel. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Rules, as stated above, provide for 30% of reservation of seats in each course. The opening words of this sub-rule “Subject to permissibility in the rules and regulations of admission of the respective Universities” in my view, do not mean that the rules of admission should provide reservation of seats for women candidates as contended and then alone reservation provided under Sub-rule (4) can be given effect to. If that be so, providing reservation under Sub-rule (4) would become redundant. The above words mean that if it is impermissible under the rules of the Universities, the reservation provided under Sub-clause (4) should not be given effect to. No material is placed before me by the learned Standing Counsel to show that under the existing rules of admission of the Osmania University, it is not permissible to provide reservation for women candidates. On the contrary, Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Osmania University Act shows it enables the University to make reservation for women and educationally backward classes. In the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench in W.P. No. 16860 of 1989 the Division Bench held that Section 6 (2) of the Osmania University Act read with G.O.Ms. No. 172 makes it obligatory on the University to frame rules and regulations providing reservation for women in the University Colleges or constituent colleges.
13. For the above mentioned reasons and in the absence of any provision in the existing rules and regulations of admission of the Osmania University making it impermissible to reserve 30% of seats for women candidates, the rule of reservation under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Rules has to be given effect to by respondents land 2.
14. A writ shall issue to respondents 1 and 2 accordingly directing to provide 30% reservation in terms of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Rules and admit the petitioners and other women candidates in the quota reserved for women candidates having regard to the ranking assigned to them in the LAWCET examination on the basis of merit.
15. The Writ Petitions are accordingly allowed with costs. Advocate’s fees: Rs. 250/- in each.