7 . S AAA IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY. THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR R WRIT PETITION NO: 1193 OF 2()7R AMARAVATI Between: 1. Srikoundinya Educational Society, NH-5, Chaitanya Knowledge City, Velugubanda Village, Rajanagaram Mandal Godavari District 533 296 Rep. by its Vice President. Varma. Rajahmundry, East K. Sasi Kiran 2. Godavari Institute of Engineering and Technology Knowledge City, Velugubanda Village Rajahmundry, East Godavari District 533 296. Rep. by its Managing Director, K. Sasi Kiran Varma. 3. K. Sasi Kiran Varma, S/o K.V.V. Satyanarayana Raju Road No.5, Film Nagar Phase-2, Apollo Backside Hyderabad - 500 033. NH-5, Chaitanya Rajanagaram Mandal, R/o Plot No. A3, Jubilee Hills, ...PETITIONERS AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Secretariat Building, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Convener, POLYCET-2024 Admissions, Office of The Director Technical Education, Door No 11-307, Garudadri 501, 6 Floor, Lakshmi Narasimha Colony, Near Aarogyasri Care Trust, Mangalagiri, Guntur District 522 503 3. The Secretary, State Board of Technical Education No 11-307, Garudadri K.K. Towers, Flat No. 501, 5th Floor, Lakshmi of K.K. Towers, Flat No. Heath and Training, Door Narasimha Colony, Near Aarogyasri Heath Care Trust Guntur District 522 503. Mangalagiri ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the circumstances stated i of India praying that in in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction may more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2^^^ respondent in refusing to ratify the list of other state students admitted in to the 2 nd petitioner institution under SPOT ADMISSION VIZ 01 seat in Automobile Engineering, 01 and 05 in Electrical and Electronics QUOTA Total 07 candidates seat in Computer Engineering Engineering. Totally 07 students were provided admissions which belongs to other 2024-2025 states for the academic year unconstitutional and contrary to the as illegal, arbitrary, provisions of Presidential Order 1974 and further direct the respondents to petitioner in left over seats made by the petitioners. consider all the admission made by the 2 valid and approve the admissions nd as lA NO: 1 OF 7()9ii Petition under Section 151 stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to ratify the list of 07 students by the 2"'“ petitioner and including appearing in the examinations petition. CPC praying that in the circumstances admitted purposes pending disposal of the main writ to treat the same as valid for all Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CHALLA Counsel for the Respondent Nos. The Court made the following: ORDER AJAY KUMAR 1 to 3: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION APHC010020662025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] WEDNESDAY. THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 1193/2025 Between: Srikoundinya Educational Society and others ...PETITIONER{S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitloner(S): 1.CHALLA AJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION ...RESPONDENT(S) The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO, 1193 of 2025 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief; “...to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2""^ respondent In refusing to ratify the list of following students Sujit Kumar Yadav (Automobile Engineering), Lakkunta Murari (Computer Engineering), Shrawan Kumar (Electrical Electronics Engineering), and Rohit Kumar (Electrical and Electronics Engineering), Sanny Kumar (Electrical Electronics Engineering), Sourabh Kumar (Electrical Electronics Engineering), Abhay Kumar (Electrical Electronics Engineering) total 07 students, who were admitted by the 2"'^ petitioner, who belongs to other states for the academic year 2024-2025 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the provisions of Presidential Order 1974, and further direct the respondents to consider all the admissions made by the 2"^^ petitioner in left over seats as valid and approve the admissions made by the petitioners and be pleased to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the and in the interest of the justice. and and and, case 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that when the similar issue came up before this Court in W.P.No.1511 of 2024, this Court disposed of the said writ petition basing upon the common T 3 orders, dated 20.11.2009 passed in W.P.No.24581 of 2009 and batch and learned counsel requested to pass similar order in this writ petition. Learned counsel for the respondents does not refute the said 4. submission. In view of the said representation made by the learned counsel 5. for the petitioners, the present Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of W.P.No.24581 of 2009, dated 20.11.2009. There shall be no order as to costs. Registry is directed to attach a copy of the order dated 20.11.2009 passed in W.P.No.24581 of 2009 to this order. 6. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any. shall stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1. The Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat building, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Convener, POLYCET-2024 Admissions, Office of the Director of Technical Education, Door No 11-307, Garudadri K.K. Towers, Flat No. 501,6^*^ Floor, Lakshmi Narasimha Colony, Near Aarogyasri Heath Care Trust, Mangalagiri, Guntur District 522 503 3. The Secretary, State Board of Technical Education and Training, Door No 11-307, Garudadri K.K. Towers, Flat No. 501,5**^ Floor, Lakshmi Narasimha Colony, Near Aarogyasri Heath Care Trust, Mangalagiri, Guntur District 522 503. 4. One CC to Sri Challa Ajay Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] To, ^ 5. Two CCs to GP for Higher Education, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] Three CD Copies. (Along with a copy of the order dated 20.11.2009 in W.P. No.24581 of 2009 to this order) 6. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:22/01/2025 0 6 FEB 2025 r ^ . Current Section X ORDER WP.No.1193 of 2025 % C9, DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W. P.Nos.24581. 24462. 24590. 24708. 24709. 24716. 24765. 24766. 24771. 24792. 24816, 24857 and 24864 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: The Government of Andhra Pradesh introduced a Scheme for lateral entry vide its orders in G.O.Ms.No.61, Higher Education (EC) Department, dated 26.05.2006. This provides for admission of Diploma Holders in Polytechnic Courses into II year of Undergraduate Provisional Courses in Engineering (including Technology) and Pharmacy in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The admission of such candidates is by conducting an entrance examination called E.C.E.T. This was supplemented by G.O.Ms.No.58, dated 12.05.2008, extending the same facility to the candidates, who possessed B.Sc. degree in Mathematics. After entrance examination is conducted, the selection process is undertaken by two agencies namely, the Convenor appointed by the Government i.e. S.W.1 and the Convenor appointed by the Consortium of private colleges, S.W.2. For the current academic year, E.C.E.T entrance examination was conducted and this was followed by counselling by S.W.1 between 29.06.2009 to 11.07.2009 and by S.W.2 between 17.07.2009 to 19.07.2009. It emerged that the number of qualified candidates is less than the number of available seats. Therefore, the leftover seats were made over to the colleges enabling them to fill them duly following the prescribed procedure. This facility is known as spot admission. The petitioners in these writ petitions are diploma holders in civil or mechanical engineering in polytechnic. While of them appeared in the entrance examination, others did not. They availed the facility of spot admission and joined the respective colleges. As required under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Engineering Common Entrance Test for Diploma Holders for admission into B.E., B.Tech., and B.Pharm Courses Rules, 2004 (for short ‘the Rules), the list of admitted candidates was submitted to the State Council of Higher Education, the second respondent in all the writ petitions, for approval. Through proceedings of different dates, the Council refused to approve and ratify the admission of the petitioners the sole ground that they belong to other States. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the same. They contend that nowhere in the Rules, any disqualification is attached to the candidates from outside and that the A.P. Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions) Order, 1974 (for short ‘the Presidential Order’) would get attracted only when the available seats are less than the qualified candidates. On behalf of the respondents, a detailed counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that the Rules are clear to the effect that the only local candidates are eligible to be admitted into the seats through the process of lateral entry and not others. According to them, the petitioners who are admittedly from some on outside the State are not entitled to be admitted. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the Council. The concept of reservations was introduced to protect the interests of weaker sections or downtrodden exception to the general rule of merit. Over the period, not only the categories of reservations proliferated, but also the method of reservation has expanded to an extent that admission by merit is reduced to a minuscule. The mind set of the authorities has been tuned to such a level that even where the candidates belonging to a particular reservation category are not available, they prefer to keep the seats vacant or permit them to go waste, than to admit the other eligible and more meritorious candidates who seek admission. This, however, is a larger question. The Presidential Order provides for reservation of 85% of the available seats in favour of local candidates in the State of Andhra Pradesh. This has the backing of Article 371-D of the Constitution of India. The necessity to enforce this rule of reservation would arise only when the seats are less compared to the number of candidates seeking admission. Reservation, be it under the Presidential Order, the one relating to the social categories would virtually become irrelevant, when every possible candidate from the respective category is accommodated and still the seats are vacant. It has already been mentioned that quite large number of seats remained vacant and on account of non-availability of the as an candidates, both the Convenors handed over the unfilled seats to the managements of the institutions to fill them, through the process of spot admission. It is true that even for making spot admissions, the institutions have to follow the rules reservation. However, where the candidates of a particular category are not available, the seat can be offered to anyone the basis of merit and subject to eligibility. It is only when a candidate belonging to a particular reserved category is denied admission despite his entitlement, that the admission of a candidate who does not belong to that category, but admitted against the seat, earmarked for the category, cannot be approved. of on Except stating that the petitioners do not hail from the State of Andhra Pradesh, no other reason is stated by the respondents. This hardly constitutes any basis to refuse the approval for the admission of the petitioners. In a way, the stand of the respondents would be that let the seats go waste, but no candidate who is otherwise eligible be admitted. Such an approach cannot be countenanced, much less, would promote national Integration, or merit in education. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. It is held that in case the petitioners hold the qualifications prescribed under the Rules, they shall be entitled to pursue the courses. There shall be no order as to costs. L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J