APHC010381652020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 25593 of 2020 Bench Sr.No:-19 [3584] All India Dalit Rights Forum and Others ...Petitioner(s) Vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Petitioner: SRIMAN Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE, GP FOR MEDICAL, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 7th July 2026 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan) Present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief: “to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in non-implementation of Rules of Reservations to SCs/STs/Cs in B and C category of Seats in Private unaided Medical and Dental Colleges for admission into MBBS/BDS Courses and Rule 4 to the extent of deletion of the word ‘rules of reservation’ in B and C Category of seats in the Andhra Pradesh Unaided Non- Minority Professional Institutions (Regulation of Admissions 2 HCJ & CGR, J W.P. No.25593 of 2020 into Under-Graduate Medical and Dental Professional Courses) Rules 2007 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 155 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to implement Rules of Reservations to SCs/STs/BCs in B and C category of Seats in Private unaided Medical and Dental Colleges for admission into MBBS/BDS Courses and pass such other orders.” 2. Heard Sri Sriman, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Medical and Health, appearing for the respondents. 3. Government of Andhra Pradesh, in order to regulate admissions into undergraduate medical and dental professional courses imparted by unaided non-minority professional institutions, in exercise of powers conferred under Sections 3 and 15 of Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983, has come up with appropriate Rules vide G.O.Ms.No.136, Health Medical and Family Welfare (E1), dated 30.04.2007. In the said Rules, in particular, Rule 4 envisaged the seat sharing matrix amongst competent authority quota and management quota. Under Category A, 50% of sanctioned intake of seats was earmarked to be filled up by competent authority based on merit in qualifying entrance examination. Under category B, 20% of sanctioned 3 HCJ & CGR, J W.P. No.25593 of 2020 intake of seats was to be filled up by management based on merit in qualifying entrance examination. The remaining seats falling in Category – C were allowed to be filled up by respective private managements in the order of merit based on applications received. Insofar as categories - A and B, the said rule envisaged that admissions should be done strictly as per rules of reservation. 4. Subsequently, vide G.O.Ms.No.33, Health Medical and Family Welfare (CI) Department, dated 17.04.2015, Rule No.4 came to be substituted. While retaining 50% of sanctioned intake of seats under Category A, Categories B and C came to be reorganized, envisaging 35% and 15% of sanctioned intake as management seats and NRI quota seats. Further, following of Rules of Reservation in the process of admissions has been confined to only Category A seats alone, meaning thereby, no rule of reservation has been provided for admissions under categories B and C. 5. By way of present writ petition, petitioner assails aforesaid action of respondents in not implementing rules of reservation for even categories B and C seats and the same to be in violation of Article 15(5) of the Constitution of India. 4 HCJ & CGR, J W.P. No.25593 of 2020 6. Learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4, while referring to the individual counters filed on their behalf would contend that the issue raised in the present writ petition has already been dealt with and decided by Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in WP No.16651 of 2015 and batch, vide order dated 25.01.2016, which later came to be followed by yet another Division Bench of very same Court in WP No.32205 of 2016, vide order dated 26.10.2016, therefore the issue is no more res integra. 7. We have gone through the orders referred to above. It is useful to refer to following paras from the order in WP No.32205 of 2016: “24. The third contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners revolves around the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No.16651 of 2015 and batch, dated 25.01.2016. As we have pointed out earlier, one of the contentions raised before the Division Bench in that case was that the failure to provide for the application of the rule of reservation to Category B seats was contrary to Rule 9 of the 2007 Rules and it also offended Article 15 of the Constitution. It is seen from paragraph 11 of the judgment of the Division Bench that the very same argument now raised before us that 5 HCJ & CGR, J W.P. No.25593 of 2020 Rule 4 ran contrary to Rule 9 was also raised before the Division Bench. 25. But in paragraph 13 of the judgment in the said decision, the Division Bench rejected those contentions after extracting paragraphs 124 to 126 of the decision of the Supreme Court in P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra1. At the cost of the repetition, we would also extract paragraphs 124, 125 and 126 of the decision of the Supreme Court in P.A. Inamdar (supra), which read as follows: "124. So far as appropriate of quota by the State and enforcement of its reservation policy is concerned, we do not see much of a difference between non-minority and minority unaided educational institutions. We find great force in the submission made on behalf of the petitioners that the States have no power to insist on seat-sharing in unaided private professional educational institutions by fixing a quota of seats between the management and the State. The State cannot insist on private educational institutions which receive no aid from the State to implement the State's policy on reservation for granting admission on lesser percentage of marks i.e., on any criterion except merit. 125. As per our understanding, neither in the judgment of Pai Foundation nor in the Constitution Bench decision in Kerala Education Bill which was approved by Pai Foundation is there anything which would allow the State to 1 AIR 2005 SC 3226 6 HCJ & CGR, J W.P. No.25593 of 2020 regulate or control admissions in the unaided professional educational institutions so as to compel them to give up a share of the available seats to the candidates chosen by the State, as if it was filling the seats available to be filled up at its discretion in such private institutions. This would amount to nationalization of seats which has been specifically Disapproved in Pai Foundation. Such imposition of quota of State seats or enforcing reservation policy of the State on available seats in unaided professional institutions are acts constituting serious encroachment on the right and autonomy of private professional educational institutions. Such appropriation of seats can also not be held to be a regulatory measure in the interest of the minority within the meaning of Article 30(1) or a reasonable restriction within the meaning of Article 19(6) of the Constitution. Merely because the resources of the State in providing professional education are limited, private educations instructions, which intend to provide better profession education, cannot be forced by the State to make admissions available on the basis of reservation policy to less meritorious candidates. Unaided institutions as they are not denying any aid from State funds, can have their own admissions if far, transparent, non-exploitative and based on merits. 126. The observations in para 68 of the majority opinion in Pai Foundation on which the learned counsel for the parties have been much at variance in their submissions, according to us, are not to be read disjointly from other 7 HCJ & CGR, J W.P. No.25593 of 2020 parts of the main judgment. A few observations contained in certain paragraphs of the judgment in Pai Foundation if read in isolation, appear conflicting or inconsistent with each other. But if the observations made and the conclusions derived are read as a whole, the judgment nowhere lays down that unaided private educational institutions of minorities and non-minorities can be forced to submit to seat-sharing and reservation policy of the State. Reading relevant parts of the judgment on which learned counsel have made comments and counter-comments and reading the whole judgment in the light of previous judgments of this Court, which have been approved in Pai Foundation, in our considered opinion, observations in para 68 merely permit unaided private institutions to maintain merit as the criterion of admission by voluntarily agreeing for seat-sharing with the State or adopting selection based on common entrance test of the State. There are also observations saying that they may frame their own policy to give freeships and scholarships to the needy and poor students or adopt a policy in line with the reservation policy of the State to cater to the educational needs of the weaker and poorer sections of the society." 26. After referring to another decision of the Supreme Court in Gulshan Prakash & others v. State of Haryana2, the Division Bench concluded that in the absence of any legislative mandate or any executive orders of the Government, there is no basis for the claim for effecting 2 AIR 2010 SC 288 8 HCJ & CGR, J W.P. No.25593 of 2020 reservations in Category B seats. We do not think that the view so taken by the Division Bench is contrary to law. With great respect to the Division Bench, we are in full agreement with the view expressed therein. Apart from the fact that there is no legislative mandate or executive order of the Government, there was also no agreement between the Government and the Association of Managements to apply rule of reservation to Category B and Category C seats. Therefore, the third contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is also unsustainable.” 8. We are in full agreement with the view expressed above. Further, it is also required to be noticed that as against the common order dated 25.01.2016, in W.P. No.16651 of 2015 and batch, even SLP(C) No.11287 of 2016 preferred before Hon’ble Apex Court also came to be dismissed vide Order dated 02.05.2016. 9. In that view of the matter, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed, and accordingly it is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending in this case, if any, shall stand closed. LISA GILL, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J ss