Judgment : The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus for declaring the action of the 2nd respondent – Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences (for short, ‘the NIMS’) in denying him admission to M.Ch. Neuro Surgery Super Specialty Course, as bad in law. 2. The petitioner submits that he hails from Srikakulam District and pursued his M.B.B.S. Degree Course from Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam and thereafter, pursued the P.G. Degree Course of M.S. in General Surgery from Rangaraya Medical College, Kakinada. The NIMS has issued a Notification on 08-04-2013 for admission to various Super Specialty Courses offered by it. The petitioner sought for admission into M.Ch. Neuro Surgery Super Specialty Course. Initially, four seats were offered to be filled up, but later on, based on the permission accorded by the Medical Council of India, two more seats in that specialty were added. Consequently, on 16-07-2013, six seats have been notified. He appeared for the entrance test conducted by NIMS, whereat he secured 56 marks. The petitioner was placed at 6th rank in the merit list. The counselling for admission took place on 20-07-2013. According to the petitioner, he was not intimated of the counselling process, but however, he came to Hyderabad later on to find out why, in spite securing 6th rank and availability of six seats, he was not granted admission into M.Ch. Neuro Surgery Super Specialty Course. Then he was informed that in view of the reservations in favour of the local candidates, he was not called for the counselling. As per the Notification, two seats were allocated for Andhra University local area, two seats were allocated for Osmania University local area, one seat for Sri Venkateswara University local area and the remaining one seat was shown as ‘unreserved’. In the merit list, Dr. Dheeraj Jujjuvarapu, who secured 60 marks at the entrance test, was granted 1st rank, based upon the marks secured by him at M.B.B.S. course and in particular, Medicine. He is a local candidate of Andhra University area. The 2nd ranker was Dr. Shyam Angatha. Though he also secured 60 marks at the entrance test, based upon his marks at the M.B.B.S. course, he was put at the 2nd rank. He is a local candidate of Osmania University area. One Dr. He is a local candidate of Andhra University area. The 2nd ranker was Dr. Shyam Angatha. Though he also secured 60 marks at the entrance test, based upon his marks at the M.B.B.S. course, he was put at the 2nd rank. He is a local candidate of Osmania University area. One Dr. Indra Mohan Thokala has also secured 60 marks at the entrance test, but however, since he secured less marks at the M.B.B.S. course, he was assigned 3rd rank. Dr. Mohammed Imran is the next candidate, who has secured 56 marks at the entrance test, but based upon the M.B.B.S. course marks, he was assigned 4th rank. He is a local candidate of the Osmania University area. Then, Dr. Narender NR, who also secured 56 marks at the entrance test, but because of his marks at the M.B.B.S. course, was put at No.5 in the merit list. The petitioner herein also secured 56 marks at the entrance test, but however, because of his marks at the M.B.B.S. course, he was assigned rank No.6 in the merit order. One Dr. Rajanikanth Amrutam could secure only 48 marks at the entrance test, hence, he was placed at merit order No.12. He is a local candidate of Sri Venkateswara University area. What the 2nd respondent did was, it granted admission to Dr. Dheeraj Jujjuvarapu and Dr. Indra Mohan Thokala against the two seats reserved for local candidates of Andhra University area. Dr. Shyam Angatha and Dr.Mohammed Imran were, similarly, granted admission against the two seats reserved for local candidates of Osmania University area and then, Dr. Rajanikanth Amrutam was granted admission against the one seat reserved for local candidate of Sri Venkateswara University area. Thus, after filling the first five seats with the local candidates of respective local areas, the sixth seat was filled up by Dr. Narender NR, who secured 5th rank against the one unreserved seat. Dr. Narender NR was granted admission on the premise that he has secured a higher rank than the petitioner herein in the overall merit ranking. Hence, this Writ Petition is instituted. 3. Heard Sri M. Srikanth, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G. Anandam, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent NIMS and the learned Government Pleader for Medial, Health & Family Welfare also on behalf of the 1st respondent herein. 4. Hence, this Writ Petition is instituted. 3. Heard Sri M. Srikanth, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G. Anandam, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent NIMS and the learned Government Pleader for Medial, Health & Family Welfare also on behalf of the 1st respondent herein. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the 2nd respondent had committed an error in granting admission to Dr. Narender NR against the one unreserved seat. The one unreserved seat should have been filled up first and in such an event, the case of Dr. Dheeraj Jujjuvarapu, who has secured 1st rank, should be considered for the purpose of admission against that one seat. If that method was followed, it is Dr. Indra Mohan Thokala and the writ petitioner, who are the local candidates of Andhra University Area, as per their inter se merit ranking, would have secured admission against the two seats meant for local candidates of Andhra University area. Similarly, Dr. Shyam Angatha and Dr. Mohammed Imran would have secured admission against the two seats reserved for Osmania University local area local candidates and Dr. Rajanikanth Amrutam, being the local candidate of Sri Venkateswara University area, would have secured admission against the one reserved seat for Sri Venkateswara University local area. Therefore, the admission granted in favour of Dr. Narender NR against the one unreserved seat, on the basis that he was placed higher in merit ranking than the petitioner herein, is erroneous and illegal. The erroneous procedure followed in filling the unreserved seat last by the 2nd respondent has resulted in this grave error. Hence, Sri Srikanth would submit that the petitioner should be granted admission into the M.Ch. Neuro Surgery Super Specialty Course by adjusting the remaining 5 candidates and the 4th respondent should be replaced. 5. Per contra, Sri Anandam would submit that the 2nd respondent has filled 85% of seats reserved in favour of the local candidates first and next, the one unreserved seat was filled up by Dr. Narender NR, who secured a superior merit ranking than the petitioner and hence, there is nothing illegal or irregular in the procedure that was adopted by the 2nd respondent. 6. Narender NR, who secured a superior merit ranking than the petitioner and hence, there is nothing illegal or irregular in the procedure that was adopted by the 2nd respondent. 6. It would be appropriate to notice that the writ petitioner has not challenged the action of the 2nd respondent in leaving one seat as ‘unreserved’ and treating the remaining five seats as reserved in favour of local candidates. It is also apt to notice that the petitioner has only raised a plea that observing reservation in favour of the local candidates in the matter of admission to Super Specialty Courses, as bad in law, inasmuch as the Supreme Court in DR. PREETI SRIVASTAVA v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ( 1999 (7) SCC 120 ) has clearly spelt out that there cannot be any reservation to be followed in the matter of admission to Super Specialty Courses of Medicine. 7. In the above backdrop, it is relevant to notice that the Constitution of India has been amended by the 32nd Amendment Act and Article 371-D is introduced therein. Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 371-D empowered the President to make an Order with respect to the State of Andhra Pradesh having regard to the requirements of the State as a whole, providing for equitable opportunities and facilities for the people belonging to different parts of the State in the matter of public employment and in the matter of education. Clause (10) of Article 371-D, in no unmistakable terms, accorded primacy to the Provisions of the said Article and to the Orders that the President might make thereunder, notwithstanding anything contained in any other Provision of the Constitution or any other law for the time being in force. In exercise of this power available under Clause (1) of Article 371-D, the President has issued the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions) Order, 1974 (henceforth referred to as ‘the Presidential Order’ for brevity). In exercise of this power available under Clause (1) of Article 371-D, the President has issued the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions) Order, 1974 (henceforth referred to as ‘the Presidential Order’ for brevity). The expressions “available seats”, “local area”, “local candidate” and “statewide University” are defined in para 2 (1) sub-paras (a), (b), (c ) and (f) in the following manner: “(a) “available seats” in relation to any course of study, means the number of seats provided in that course for admission at any time after excluding those reserved for candidates from outside the State; (b) “local area” in respect of any University or other educational institution means the local area specified in paragraph 3 of this Order for the purposes of admission to such University or other educational institution; (c) “local candidate” in relation to any local area, means a candidate who is qualified under paragraph 4 of this Order as a local candidate in relation to such local area; and (f) “State-wide University” means the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University constituted under the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University Act, 1963 (Andhra Pradesh Act 24 of 1963), or the Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University constituted under the Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Act, 1972 (Andhra Pradesh Act 16 of 1972) [or the Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences constituted under the Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 1989 (A.P. Act No.13 of 1989)].” Para 3 defined “local area” and sub-para (1) thereof defined that part of the State comprising the districts of Srikakulam, Visakhapatnam, West Godavari, East Godavari, Krishna, Guntur and Prakasam shall be regarded as the local area for the purposes of admission to the Andhra University and the Nagarjuna University. Similarly, sub-para (2) of para 3 defined that part of the State comprising the districts of Adilabad, Hyderabad, Karimnagar, Khammam, Mahaboobnagar, Medak, Nalgonda, Nizamabad and Warangal shall be regarded as a local area for the purposes of admission to the Osmania University and the Kakatiya University, while sub-para (3) of para 3 defined that part of the State comprising the districts of Anantapur, Kadapa, Kurnool, Chittoor and Nellore shall be regarded as the local area for the purpose of admission to Sri Venkateswara University. Correspondingly, para 4 detailed the “local candidate”, while para 5 dealt with reservation in non-state-wide Universities and educational institutions. Para 6 dealt with reservation in state-wide universities and state-wide educational institutions. Correspondingly, para 4 detailed the “local candidate”, while para 5 dealt with reservation in non-state-wide Universities and educational institutions. Para 6 dealt with reservation in state-wide universities and state-wide educational institutions. Since, the NIMS is declared as a State-wide University, it would be absolutely necessary for us to focus attention on para 6 of the Presidential Order. Hence, it is appropriate to quote it herein below: “6. Reservation in State-wide Universities and State-wide Educational Institutions:- (1) Admissions to eighty-five percent of the available seats in every course of study provided by a State-wide University or a State-wide educational institution shall be reserved in favour of local candidates and allocated among the local candidates in relation to the local areas specified in sub-paragraph (1), sub-paragraph (2) and sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 3, in the ratio of 42 : 36 : 22 respectively. Provided that this sub-paragraph shall not apply in relation to any course of study in which the total number of available seats does not exceed three. (2) While determining under sub-paragraph (1) the number of seats to be reserved in favour of the local candidates, any fraction of seat shall be counted as one: Provided that there shall be atleast one unreserved seat. (3) While allocating under sub-paragraph (1) the reserved seats among the local candidates in relation to different local areas, fraction of a seat shall be adjusted by counting the greatest fraction as one and, if necessary, also the greater of the remaining fractions as another; and, where the fraction to be so counted cannot be selected by reason of the fractions being equal, the selection shall be by lot;” Provided that there shall be atleast one seat allocated for the local candidates in respect of each local area. Sub-para (1) sets out that 85% of the available seats in every course of study provided by a Statewide University shall be reserved in favour of local candidates and allocated amongst the local candidates in relation to the local areas specified in sub-paras (1), (2) and (3) of para 3 in the ratio of 42 : 36 : 22 respectively. The Proviso added to sub-para (1) of para 6 makes it clear that this proportionate division of seats would apply only when the total number of seats available in a course of study exceeds three. The Proviso added to sub-para (1) of para 6 makes it clear that this proportionate division of seats would apply only when the total number of seats available in a course of study exceeds three. Thus, it is clear that 85% of the seats available in every course of study, where the available seats are four or more, will be reserved in favour of the local candidates of all the three local areas in the State in the proportion noted supra. Sub-paras (2) and (3) when read together, it becomes clear that there shall be, at least, one seat allocated for the local candidates in respect of each local area. In other words, one seat each, at least, shall be made available to the local candidates of the respective three local areas spelt out in para 3 of the Presidential Order first and then the exercise of rounding of fractions to a whole-number will have to be undertaken. The Proviso incorporated under Sub-para (2) of para 6 requires that, at least, one seat should be left unreserved. 8. In view of the special Provision made in the Constitution in respect of the State of Andhra Pradesh by incorporating Article 371-D and further by virtue of the primacy accorded to the contents of the said Article and the orders made by the President thereunder, notwithstanding anything contained in any other Provision of the Constitution, it becomes imperative that the principles of reservation in favour of the local candidates in Andhra Pradesh has got to be followed in respect of admissions to various courses of study offered by the State-wide as well as non-State-wide Universities and all other State funded educational institutions. Hence, the contention canvassed that no reservation in Super Specialty Medical Courses should be followed, as enunciated by the Supreme Court in DR. PREETI SREEVASTAVA’s case, is not applicable in the State of Andhra Pradesh to the extent of offering admissions based upon the prescription contained in paras 5 and 6 of the Presidential Order. 9. Further, the principle that admissions to Super Specialty Medical Courses should be exclusively based upon merit ranking, but not on any other criteria, as set out in DR. PREETI SRIVASTAVA’s case (cited 1 supra) is concerned, it should be understood in the context of reservations contemplated by Article 15(4) of the Constitution. 9. Further, the principle that admissions to Super Specialty Medical Courses should be exclusively based upon merit ranking, but not on any other criteria, as set out in DR. PREETI SRIVASTAVA’s case (cited 1 supra) is concerned, it should be understood in the context of reservations contemplated by Article 15(4) of the Constitution. Hence, so long as seats are not earmarked for admission to candidates based only upon social sector reservation principles, the admission process to Super Specialty Medical Courses would be in conformity with the principles enunciated in DR. PREETI SRIVASTAVA’s case. I therefore, have no hesitation to reject the contention canvassed by the petitioner that there could not have been any reservation in favour of local candidates in M.Ch Neuro Surgery course offered by the NIMS. 10. Now, dealing with the important question of how to work out the allocation of seats amongst the three local areas, para 6(1) of the Presidential Order required 85 percent of the seats to be apportioned amongst the Andhra University local area candidates, Osmania University local area candidates and Sri Venkateswara University local area candidates in the proportion of 42 : 36 : 22, whereas sub-para (2) of para 6 required any fraction of a seat to be counted as one and sub-para (3) required the greatest fraction to be counted as one. Now, 85 percent of the six seats available in M.Ch (Neuro Surgery) works out to 5.10 and going by the rule that fraction of a seat shall be counted as one, 5.10 will have to be counted as six seats. If these six seats are to be apportioned now, for Andhra University, the proportion of seats would work out to 2.52 (i.e., 42 %), for Osmania University, 2.16 (i.e., 36 %) and 1.32 with regard to Sri Venkateswara University (i.e.,22 %). We have fractions in all the three cases, namely, 0.52, 0.16 and 0.32 and the greatest amongst them is 0.52. Then, going by the rule of rounding off the greatest fraction as one, 2.52 will have to be counted as 3 and the remaining seats would only be 3 and since, one seat, at least, must be made available to each region, 2 seats become available to Osmania University and the remaining 6th seat, however, would go to Sri Venkateswara University. In other words, out of 6 seats, 3 will have to be filled in by Andhra University area local candidates, 2 by Osmania University area local candidates and the remaining 6th seat by Sri Venkateswara University area local candidate. No seat can be spared for ‘Unreserved Segment’. 11. Then, the question that needs to be answered is how to reconcile the Proviso incorporated under para 6(2) requiring, at least, 1 seat to be left ‘unreserved’. 12. A Proviso, as is too well-known, is required to be understood in the context of its setting. If 15% of seats are required to be left as unreserved, thus, throwing them open to all, including the local candidates, 15% out of 6 seats will work out only to 0.90%, which is less than the whole number ‘1’. In the preceding paragraph, we have worked out the main part of the requirements spelt out in para 6, for reserving 85% of the seats for local candidates. When so worked out, we have realized that all the 6 seats will get proportionately distributed amongst the three local area candidates, thus leaving no seat available for the unreserved segment. To put it differently, 85% of the 6 seats works out to 5.10 and the balance 15% is working out to 0.90%. Hence, the necessity to reconcile the main part of para 6 with the Proviso incorporated therein, has engaged the attention of the Full Bench of this Court in Dr. B. Sudhakar vs. Union of India and others (AIR 1995 ANDHRA PRADESH 86), in which the principle has been set out in the following manner: “22. From the above discussion it follows that The approach of the Court while interpreting a constitutional provision or a statute or any other legislation whether primary or subordinate, should be to discover the intention of the Legislature and to give effect to it. The intention has to be gathered first by ascertaining the meaning of the words used in the provisions in question and then noticing their legal effect. The intention has to be gathered first by ascertaining the meaning of the words used in the provisions in question and then noticing their legal effect. If the words used are clear and unambiguous, they present no difficulty; however if they are imprecise, protean or capable of more meanings than one, the court has to take aid from legislative history, basic scheme and frame-work, of the Statute and purpose and object sought to be achieved by the Statute in question and give a purposeful interpretation so as to advance the intention of the legislature thus gathered by avoiding inconsistency, repugnancy, absurdity or injustice, if any, arising from the phraseology of the legislation. In construing a 'Proviso' which is more often appended to an enactment, the general principle is that its meaning and scope are dependent on the principal enacting provision to which it is tacked as a 'proviso' and that it cannot be taken as a separate or independent enactment to be read a divorce from its context unless the context itself compels such a treatment of the proviso. …………………. 28. From the above statement of illustrations, it can be noticed that 85% of the available seats between 1 and 19 will always contain a fraction of the seat; it is only when the number of available seats are 20 that under sub-paragraph (1), the reserved seats for a local area, 85% of 20, will come to 17 seats. Sub-paragraph (2) which is explanatory of sub-paragraph (I), enjoins that while determining the number of seats to be reserved in favour of the local candidates under subparagraph (1), any fraction of a seat shall be counted as one. So counting the fraction of a seat mentioned in column (2), we arrive at figures stated in column (3), we notice that corresponding to the number of available seats between 1 and 6, all the available seats will have to be counted as reserved seats under sub-paragraph (I), and no seat is left as unreserved as can be seen from column (4), when the number of available seats varies between 7 and 13, number of reserved seats will vary between 6 to 12 but only one seat will be available as 'unreserved seat'. So also, when the number of available seats varied between 14 and 19, the number of unreserved seats would be only two. So also, when the number of available seats varied between 14 and 19, the number of unreserved seats would be only two. It is only when the number of available seats are 20, as has been noticed above, there will be no fraction of a seat and sub-paragraph (2) will not come into operation. What is evident is that when the number of available seats is 13, as against 12 reserved seats under sub-paragraph (1) being 85% of the available seats, only one seat will be available as unreserved. This is the literal interpretation of the two sub-paragraphs of paragraph 5 of the Presidential Order. 29. How is this position altered by the Proviso? We shall first examine it on the assumption that the number of available seats is more than one as the expression used in paragraph 5 is 'available seats', and consider the controversy relating to a single available, seat a little later. From the statement, it has been noticed that by operation of sub-paragraphs 1 and 2, when the number of seats vary between 2 and 6, all the seats will be treated as 'reserved' and nothing will be available for 'unreserved' category; but due to operation of the proviso, one seat out of them will have to be kept as 'unreserved'; and when the number of seats vary between 7 and 13 and between 14 and 19, one seat and two seats in the first and the second contingency respectively, will be available for unreserved category; as such in these situations there will be no occasion for application of the proviso. Also, when the available seats are 20, in calculating 85% of those seats there will be no fraction of a seat, so, sub-paragraph (2) has no application. Consequently, there will be no scope for the proviso to come into operation. From the above discussion and the illustrations in the statement, it follows that the proviso applies only in a limited situations -- when the number of available seats varies between 2 and 6, and that it has no application when there are 'no reserved seats' as well as when there are 'unreserved' from out of available' seats.” From the above, it emerges that unless a 7th seat becomes available for admission in a course of study, 1 seat does not become available for the unreserved segment. In fact, when 20 seats become available, the distribution of seats amongst the local segment representing 85% and the unreserved segment representing 15% would work out clearly leaving no fractions. 17 seats will become available for the 85% local segment, while 3 seats become available for unreserved segment. Therefore, when seats become available between 4 to 19, the requirement to reconcile the greatest fraction to be rounded off as 1, poses a problem. (when seats available are 3 or less, all the seats will have to be offered to the local candidates in the descending of their merit). In that backdrop, the finding of the Full Bench is crystal clear that unless 7 seats become available in a course of study, 1 seat cannot be spared for the unreserved segment. 13. Unfortunately, the NIMS has not properly understood the requirement in this regard, when it has notified 1 out of 6 seats to go for unreserved segment. When it has shown 1 seat to the unreserved segment, and later on it went by the general merit order between the petitioner and the 4th respondent and the 4th respondent having been placed at merit order No.5, a rank above than the petitioner, he was granted admission. If only the petitioner has put in issue squarely the action of the NIMS in setting apart 1 seat for unreserved segment, at the very initial stage, perhaps, there would have been an opportunity for the NIMS to correct its approach and avoid setting apart 1 seat for the unreserved segment. 14. This apart, the NIMS has understood that 85% of the seats, being a higher fraction than 15%, should be filled in first. In fact, it should have understood that against an unreserved seat, all the candidates, irrespective of the preferential treatment as a local candidate that they are entitled to otherwise, can also compete. All unreserved seats are liable to be filled in, strictly in accordance with the merit order. Therefore, they should be filled in first and thereafter, the reserved segment seats in favour of local candidates should be filed in, so that the most meritorious local candidates will also have a fair chance of getting selected against the 15% unreserved seats. 15. All unreserved seats are liable to be filled in, strictly in accordance with the merit order. Therefore, they should be filled in first and thereafter, the reserved segment seats in favour of local candidates should be filed in, so that the most meritorious local candidates will also have a fair chance of getting selected against the 15% unreserved seats. 15. These issues should have been called as such prior to the commencement of a Super Specialty Medical Course, but not after the admission process was complete and after the Super Specialty Courses have commenced, the present Writ Petition came to be instituted. Admission process to Super Specialty Courses should not be dragged on endlessly. Once it reaches the stage of finality, the entire process must be stopped and the students must be allowed to concentrate fully on the course curriculum, comprising of both academic and research activities, to be pursued by them, unmindful of other factors. Otherwise, the very purpose and requirement of focused attention being paid during the currency of the course will get diluted. That would be contrary to the larger public interest. Further, the 4th respondent is not at fault. He has not contributed in any manner to the error of judgment made by NIMS. He may have quit his job or even an opportunity of admission elsewhere before taking admission in NIMS. Therefore, the special equities in this regard have worked out in favour of the 4th respondent. Hence, I decline to upset his admission, all the more so, because he secured a better rank than the petitioner herein. 16. For the above-said reasons, the writ petition fails and it is accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage. No costs.