JUDGMENT : Akula Venkata Sesha Sai, J. 1. Alleged failure on the part of the respondents in implementing the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Appeal No. 8529 of 2018, arising out of SLP (C) No. 22000 of 2018, dated 24.8.2018, in the case of Dega Venkata Harsha Vardhan v. Akula Venkata Harshavardhan, and Paragraph No. 5(ii) of G.O. Rt. No. 550, Higher Education (EC.2) Department, dated 30.7.2001, is the common grievance of the petitioners in these writ petitions. 2. The petitioners in these writ petitions appeared for National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET), 2019 examination and got qualified in the said test. It is the complaint of the petitioners herein that in the event of implementing Paragraph No. 5(ii) of G.O. Rt. No. 550, Higher Education (EC.2) Department, dated 30.7.2001, in its true letter and spirit, they and other similarly situated students would get the real fruits of the said Government Order. 3. The following factual aspects may be relevant for adjudication of the issues involved in these writ petitions: The Andhra Pradesh Professional Education Institutions (Regulation of Admission into under-Graduate Professional Courses through Common Entrance Test) Rules, 1993, notified by G.O. Ms. No. 184, Education (EC.2) Department, dated 20.8.1993, stipulate the following social reservations. (1) Scheduled Castes - 15% (2) Scheduled Tribes - 6% (3) Backward Classes - 25%, in the manner indicated infra, among the 4 groups: (i) Group A-7%; (ii) Group B-10%; (iii) Group C-1% and (iv) Group D-7%. The State Government, pursuant to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment in Ritesh R. Shah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul and others, (1996) 3 SCC 253 and the orders of the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No. 26404 of 1999 and Writ Appeal No. 795 of 1999, issued instructions vide G.O. Rt. No. 550, Higher Education (EC.2) Department, dated 30.7.2001. Y.L. Yamul and others, (1996) 3 SCC 253 and the orders of the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No. 26404 of 1999 and Writ Appeal No. 795 of 1999, issued instructions vide G.O. Rt. No. 550, Higher Education (EC.2) Department, dated 30.7.2001. Paragraph No. 5 of the said Government Order reads as under: "After careful consideration and due examination of the issue relating to implementation of reservation for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes/Backward Classes in engineering and other Professional Courses, the following instructions are hereby issued:- (i) In the counseling process, the seats to be filled by open competition should be filled up first, wherein the candidates should be called for counseling based on merit alone irrespective of whether they belong to SC, ST or BC in accordance with the instructions issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 996, Employment & Social Welfare, dated 11th November, 1975. (ii) Next, reservation categories like SC/ST/BC candidates will be counseled to fill the seats earmarked for them in their respective categories. During this process, if a candidate belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes/Backward Classes who had taken admission under open competition, opts for a better branch or a better college of his choice for which he or she would be eligible as per the rules of reservation, the seat vacated by him or her in open competition shall be filled with a candidate from the same reservation category only, on order or merit." According to the petitioners, the said G.O. Rt. No. 550, dated 30.7.2001, was implemented, in its true letter and spirit, till the year 2017, and in the year 2017, a batch of writ petitions came to be filed before the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh, assailing Paragraph No. 5 of the said Government Order. By way of an order dated 30.8.2017 in Writ Petition No. 29175 of 2017, a Division Bench of the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh had stayed Paragraph No. 5(ii) of the G.O. Rt. No. 550, dated 30.7.2001 by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Ramesh Ram and others, reported in (2010) 7 SCC 234 . Subsequently, the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh, vide order dated 7.8.2018 in Writ Petition No. 29175 of 2017, had set aside the Paragraph No. 5(ii) of the said Government Order. Subsequently, the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh, vide order dated 7.8.2018 in Writ Petition No. 29175 of 2017, had set aside the Paragraph No. 5(ii) of the said Government Order. The said judgment was carried in appeal to the Hon'ble Apex Court by way of Appeal No. 8529 of 2018 arising out of SLP (C) No. 22000 of 2018, and the Hon'ble Apex Court, vide order dated 24.8.2018, reported in Dega Venkata Harsha Vardhan v. Akula Venkata Harshavardhan (supra), had set aside the above said judgment of the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh rendered in Writ Petition No. 29175 of 2017 and consequently upheld the G.O. Rt. No. 550, dated 30.7.2001. While pleading that in view of the abovesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is incumbent and obligatory on the part of the respondents to hold the process of counseling in accordance with Paragraph No. 5(ii) of G.O. Rt. No. 550, dated 30.7.2001, the petitioners in these writ petitions are alleging failure on the part of the respondents in adhering to the same. 4. Counter-affidavit is filed by the respondent-University and a reply is also filed by the writ petitioners in Writ Petition No. 11018 of 2019. 5. Heard S/Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy and A. Satya Prasad, learned Senior Counsel, and Sri Y. Koteswar Rao, learned Counsel, for the petitioners, and Sri Ghanta Rama Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu, learned Counsel for the petitioner in IA No. 2 of 2019 in WP No. 11018 of 2019 and petitioner in WP No. 12099 of 2019; the learned Advocate General for Sri Taddi Nageswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent-University; the learned Additional Advocate General for the State and Sri Vivek Chandrasekhar, learned Standing Counsel for Medical Council of India, apart from perusing the material available before this Court. 6. The contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners by the learned Counsel for the petitioners are as follows: (i) The respondent-University failed to follow Paragraph No. 5(ii) of G.O. Rt. 6. The contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners by the learned Counsel for the petitioners are as follows: (i) The respondent-University failed to follow Paragraph No. 5(ii) of G.O. Rt. No. 550, dated 30.7.2001 and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dega Venkata Harsha Vardhan v. Akula Venkata Harshavardhan (supra); (ii) The seats vacated by meritorious reserved category (MRC) candidates were not filled up by the respective reserved category candidates, which resulted in loss of number of seats by the reserved category candidates; (iii) The N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, on an application made under the Right to Information Act, 2005, furnished information vide letter dated 24.7.2018, and according to which, 41 seats in Andhra University area and 35 seats in Sri Venkateswara University area, were lost by the reserved category candidates; (iv) Instead of adhering to Paragraph No. 5(ii) of G.O. Rt. No. 550, dated 30.7.2001, the respondent-University placed reliance on suggestions made by a Committee constituted vide G.O. Rt. No. 21, HM & FW (CI) Department, dated 10.1.2019, and though the recommendations of the Committee were not completely accepted by the State Government vide G.O. Rt. No. 111, Higher Education (EC.) Department, dated 13.8.2019, so many people belonging to reserved categories have lost the seats; (v) The vacated seats by the MRC candidates by exercising the facility of option, could not have been taken to second phase of counseling and the same is not permissible as per Paragraph No. 5(ii) of G.O. Rt. No. 550, dated 30.7.2001; (vi) Only after completion of the process under Paragraph No. 5(i) of G.O. Rt. No. 550, dated 30.7.2001, the respondents herein can take up the process under Paragraph No. 5(ii) of the said Government Order, but the respondents have not adhered to the said procedure; (vii) Since the suggestions of the Committee did not take the shape of a Government Order by the time the counseling was taken up, the respondent-University ought not to have followed the said suggestions and ought to have proceeded strictly in accordance with Paragraph No. 5(ii) of G.O. Rt. No. 550, dated 30.7.2001; (viii) The judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court for the State of Telangana is not a binding precedent for this Court. No. 550, dated 30.7.2001; (viii) The judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court for the State of Telangana is not a binding precedent for this Court. In support of their submissions/contentions, learned Counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 11018 of 2019 takes the support of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in (1979) 4 SCC 429 (Paragraph No. 21) and the Bombay High Court (Paragraph No. 6). Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy, learned Senior Counsel also placed reliance on the following judgments: (i) in Koganti Jayakrishna and another v. State of A.P. and another, 2002 (4) ALD 389 (FB); (ii) in Samtak Aandolan Samiti and another v. Union of India and others, (2014) 14 SCC 745 ; (iii) in Tripurari Sharan and another v. Ranjit Kumar Yadav and others, (2018) 2 SCC 656 . 7. The contentions advanced on behalf of the N.T.R. University of Health Sciences by the learned Advocate General appearing for Sri Taddi Nageswara Rao and the other Counsel for respondents, are as follows: (i) The procedure adopted by the respondent-University of Health Sciences did not result in reduction of percentage of seats earmarked to the reserved categories; (ii) the information furnished by the N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, vide letter dated 24.7.2019, is only in response to the information sought under the Right to Information Act by way of application dated 23.7.2019, and the said information does not show the final allotment of the seats made to various categories; (iii) The respondent-University authorities followed G.O. Rt. No. 550, Higher Education (EC.2) Department, dated 30.7.2001 in its true letter and spirit, keeping in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dega Venkata Harsha Vardhan v. Akula Venkata Harshavardhan (supra) and in accordance with the decisions in Ritesh R. Shah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul and others (supra); Samtak Aandolan Samiti and another v. Union of India and others (supra) and Koganti Jayakrishna and another v. State of A.P. and another (supra) and as such, the same cannot be faulted. 8. Y.L. Yamul and others (supra); Samtak Aandolan Samiti and another v. Union of India and others (supra) and Koganti Jayakrishna and another v. State of A.P. and another (supra) and as such, the same cannot be faulted. 8. Following are the submissions/contentions of Sri Ghanta Rama Rao, learned Senior Counsel: (i) There cannot be any dispute with regard to the principle laid down in the case of Dega Venkata Harsha Vardhan v. Akula Venkata Harshavardhan (supra); (ii) The contention that the seats vacated by the MRC candidates selected in open category are required to be filled up immediately, and unless the seats meant for open competition are completely filled, as provided under Paragraph No. 5(i) of G.O. Rt. No. 550, Higher Education (EC.2) Department, dated 30.7.2001 before proceeding further with the process under Paragraph No. 5(ii) of the said Government Order, cannot be done because of option given by the MRC candidates to slide to the reserved category for betterment cannot be treated as final, as such, the seats vacated by the MRC candidates cannot be filled up and the said procedure cannot be faulted; (iii) No evidence is placed on record to demonstrate that because of the procedure adopted by the respondent-university, certain people belonging to reserved categories lost stipulated percentage of seats earmarked for them; (iv) The respondents have thoroughly complied with Paragraph No. 5(i) and (ii) of G.O. Rt. No. 550, Higher Education (EC.2) Department, dated 30.7.2001, and the same would be evident from the report of the Committee appointed by this Court; (v) The process of implementation of G.O. Rt. No. 550, Higher Education (EC.2) Department, dated 30.7.2001 during the second round of counseling resulted in loss of seats by the candidates belonging to open category and the same is violative of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 9. While refuting the contention of the learned Senior Counsel, Sri Ghanta Rama Rao that in view of the procedure adopted by the respondent-University during the course of second round of counseling, O.C. candidates lost seats, it is submitted by the learned Advocate General, appearing for the respondent-University that the said: contention is not sustainable, and furnished the following information by way of a separate note: "Selections Procedure Followed by the Dr. NTR UHS, During the MBBS/BDS counseling for the Year 2019-20. i. Dr. NTR UHS, During the MBBS/BDS counseling for the Year 2019-20. i. Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences will announce the dates for exercising the web options after verification of original certificates at the centers notified. ii. The selections will be course wise and University area wise. iii. As per the G.O. Ms. No. 42, the UR seats (Un Reserved seats) will be filled first and then the local seats will be filled. For UR seats both local and non-local candidates are eligible. iv. All the open competition seats in a course shall be filled first, basing on the options exercised by the candidates irrespective of their categories i.e., SC/ST/BC/OC in order of merit. v. a. Next, reservation categories like SC/ST/BC seats will be filled against the seats earmarked for them in their respective categories. During this process, if a candidate belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes/Backward Classes who was allotted admission under open competition, will be slided/re-allotted for a better college of his/her choice for which he or she would be eligible as per the rules of reservation. Then he/she will be treated as open category candidate for all practical purposes duly considering him/her as 'MRC' (Meritorious Reserved Candidate) candidate. b. During the process the open category seats vacated by MRC candidates shall be kept vacant until further counseling. vi. All the selected candidates will be given selection orders to join respective colleges on or before the prescribed date as indicated in the provisional allotment order. vii. During the process MRC candidates vacated in open competition shall be filled with a candidate from the same reserved category during the subsequent counseling only. Basing on if, MRC candidates joined in slided/re-allotted college, the vacated seat in open competition filled with candidates from the same category only. If, the MRC candidate has not joined in slided/re-allotted college of their choice of option the vacated seat in open competition will be filled with open competition by merit. viii. In the subsequent rounds of counseling the unfilled seats, seats vacated during the process of counseling and seats arised due to not joining of the candidates in previous counselings will be filled as follows: * Open seats are allotted to OC/SC/ST/BC by merit. * Category seats are allotted to respective category candidates only. viii. In the subsequent rounds of counseling the unfilled seats, seats vacated during the process of counseling and seats arised due to not joining of the candidates in previous counselings will be filled as follows: * Open seats are allotted to OC/SC/ST/BC by merit. * Category seats are allotted to respective category candidates only. List of candidates shown in the table of MRCs candidates with the data of various counseling in the petitioners affidavit and, the status as per the available counseling data. S.No. Rank HTNO MRC Not Joined Student_Name 1. 4130 410106673 MRC Not Reported Eddula Sai Kartheek 2. 8820 120514166 MRC Reported Pottendla Sai Sushritha 3. 5120 120107294 MRC Not Reported J. Tharun 4. 8272 120502296 MRC Reported Nandimandalam Naga Jithendra 5. 9936 120304350 MRC Reported Bodagala Ahobila Narasimha 6. 10376 120611749 MRC Reported Kottana Sai Charan 7. 10444 120100792 MRC Reported Zaheer Khan 8. 10509 120610111 MRC Reported Suresh Balaga 9. 11945 120602407 Not MRC Kothali Tharun Kumar 10. 11983 120606670 Not MRC Guntreddi Bhargava Rami Naidu 11. 12261 120611562 Not MRC Garbhana Hari Koushik 12. 12350 120607344 Not MRC Divya Vani Yalla 13. 12477 120610505 Not MRC Koilada Naga Krishna Vidheera 14. 12610 120612179 Not MRC Gandi Swetha 15. 12830 120602313 Not MRC Yeluduti Rahul Raj 16. 13023 120511221 Not MRC Purushottam Praveen Kumar 17. 13472 120501426 Not MRC Doddi Niharika 18. 17931 120605199 MRC Reported Latchipatula Meghanath Naidu 19. 19012 120514093 MRC Reported Daddala Sree Lekha 20. 20364 120107158 MRC Reported Srinivas Kalyan Katteboyina 21. 21853 120609405 Not MRC Tanna Mounika 22. 21969 120605635 Not MRC Boddeti Yamini Tara 23. 23473 120506925 Not MRC Dasari Manasi 24. 24419 120611645 MRC Reported Doddi Hara Venkat In the above table there are 24 candidates who were claimed to be in open category and MRCs. It is submitted that of the 24 candidates in the table * 2 candidates are MRCs but they have not joined into slided category seat. * 10 candidates were slided and considered as MRCs at the end of 1st phase of allotment. * 12 candidates were not slided from Open to BC and hence, they cannot be considered as MRCs instead they were selected directly into categories by their merit. It is also submitted that the implementation of G.O. 550 of sliding from OC to category seats is done. * 12 candidates were not slided from Open to BC and hence, they cannot be considered as MRCs instead they were selected directly into categories by their merit. It is also submitted that the implementation of G.O. 550 of sliding from OC to category seats is done. A break is given for the candidates to join in the respective colleges and the vacant position is obtained from the colleges before running the subsequent phase of counseling to complete the implementation of G.O. 550. The MRC candidates who were not joined in their colleges due to getting better seats in other States, their vacated open seats are kept as open seats only for the purpose of filling. The category candidates slided from open seats and reported in their respective colleges, their vacated open seats are treated as category seats and filled by the respective category candidates. In the subsequent counselings after taking fresh options from the candidates the allotments are done simultaneously and the open seats are allotted to OC/BC/SC/ST and category seats filled with respective category candidates. The BDS candidates are allowed to slide into MBBS Course depending on their position in the merit list as the counseling is done simultaneously for both courses. For the reasons stated, it is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the writ petition with costs and pass such order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." 10. It is absolutely not in controversy that G.O. Rt. No. 550, Higher Education (EC.2) Department, dated 30.7.2001 attained finality in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dega Venkata Harsha Vardhan v. Akula Venkata Harshavardhan (supra), wherein the Apex Court upheld Paragraph No. 5 of the said Government Order. Therefore, it is incumbent and mandatory on the part of the respondents to strictly adhere to and implement the said order of the State Government. Now, the issue in the present writ petitions that arises for consideration of this Court is: "Whether the N.T.R. University of Health Sciences adhered to, Paragraph No. 5(ii) of G.O. Rt. No. 550, Higher Education (EC.2) Department, dated 30.7.2001 in its true letter and spirit, and whether the candidates belonging to reserved categories are deprived of seats because of the procedure adopted by the University?" 11. No. 550, Higher Education (EC.2) Department, dated 30.7.2001 in its true letter and spirit, and whether the candidates belonging to reserved categories are deprived of seats because of the procedure adopted by the University?" 11. This Court, having regard to the nature of controversy, appointed a three member committee, consisting of the following persons, as suggested by the learned Senior Counsel Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy and Sri A. Satya Prasad, and the learned Advocate General, vide order dated 19.8.2019. S/Sri. (1) Dr. I.V. Rao, M.D., Former Superintendent, GGH, Kakinada, Director of Medical Education and Vice-Chancellor, Dr. NTRUHS, R/o. Opposite Town Hall, Main Road, Kakinada-1 (Chairman) (2) Dr. Ala Venkateswarlu, M.D. (Paed.), D. No. 4-15-19/10, Amaravati Road, Guntur-2. (3) Dr. K. Venugopal, M.Sc, M.Phil., Ph.D., Lecturer in Chemistry, Government Degree College, Pattikonda, Kurnool District. R/o. H. No.87-331-403, Sai Vasanth Nivas, Kishan Nagar, Kurnool. The Committee was requested to submit report on the following points: (1) Whether the respondents adhered to G.O. Rt. No. 550, Higher Education (EC.2) Department, dated 30.7.2001 in the process of medical admissions, and whether the seats which became vacant because of the sliding exercised by the Meritorious Reserved Category (MRC) candidates have been allotted to the students of the same categories, to which such MRCs belong? (2) Whether 50% seats in open competition including MRCs and 50% of seats in reserved category excluding MRCs was maintained or not in Phases-I & II? The Committee submitted its report, which reads as follows: "(1) The university has followed G.O. Rt. No. 550 and all the admissions made in the 1st phase of counseling were thoroughly verified and found to be in order. (2) The seats allotted to MRC candidates in the open category have been identified and found to be correct. The seats vacated in the open category by sliding of the MRC candidates which were allotted to respective reserved categories were also verified and found to be correct. (3) At the end of the 1st phase of the counseling it was found that the ratio of 50% seats to open candidates including MRCs and 50% seats to reserve candidates excluding MRCs was maintained. (4) From the records of the second phase of counseling submitted by the university and after verification of data it was found that the ratio of 50% seats to open category candidates and 50% seats to reserve category candidates was maintained. (4) From the records of the second phase of counseling submitted by the university and after verification of data it was found that the ratio of 50% seats to open category candidates and 50% seats to reserve category candidates was maintained. (5) Observations of the expert members Dr. Ala Venkateswarlu and Dr. K. Venugopal. (a) The seats vacated by MRCs in the slided category and the unreported seats among the reserved category students were filled together with the same reserved category students in the 1st round of 2nd phase by the university. However, the seats vacated by the MRCs in the slided category should be filled first thereby completing the 1st phase of counseling. (b) During the second phase of counseling the university has taken up the counseling for reserved category students first, followed by open category students. But the counseling for open category students should be taken up first followed by reserved category students providing the opportunity for the reserved category students to claim a seat in the open category also. The procedure followed by the university may result in loss of some seats to the reserved category students. (c) The second phase of counseling should be conducted only for resultant vacancies in the open category and reservation category. Open category counseling should be followed by the counseling for reserved category seats. (6) The university has called for fresh options before the second phase of counseling without filling all the seats (the resultant vacancies of the MRCs slided and joined). The three expert members express the opinion that options for allocation of colleges should be taken up only once at the time of commencement of the counseling and not to be invited again before further counselings as it would result in a lot of confusion in the allocation of seats and maintenance of 50%-50% reservation structure." 12. While referring to the suggestions of the Committee, it is submitted by the learned Advocate General that the opinion expressed at Clauses (a), (b) and (c) by the two members of the said Committee, are beyond the scope of the warrant entrusted by this Court. It is also his submission that the persons at Sl. Nos. 2 and 3 of the Committee are actively agitating for the cause in the present writ petitions. 13. It is also his submission that the persons at Sl. Nos. 2 and 3 of the Committee are actively agitating for the cause in the present writ petitions. 13. While pointing out the information furnished by the N.T.R. University of Health Sciences in response to the information sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005, it is the specific contention of the learned Senior Counsel, Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy, appearing for the petitioners, that it would be very much evident from the letter dated 24.7.2019 that as per the statistics and figures furnished therein, the reserved categories lost a total of 76 seats in Andhra University and Sri Venkateswara University areas. Refuting the said contention, it is submitted by the learned Advocate General that the information furnished by the University on the application made under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 24.7.2019, is only to the extent of information sought by the applicants therein. The learned Advocate General has brought to our notice, Paragraph Nos. 7 and 8 of the counter-affidavit wherein the information with regard to filling up of the seats in various categories is furnished. The said figures, as per the learned Advocate General, indicate/reflect the final allotment. The said information reads as under. "7. For the current academic year 2019-20, 1st phase of counseling for exercising web options was scheduled from 8th to 11th of July, 2019 and allotments were released on 11th July, 2019 with the direction to the candidates to report the Principal of allotted college by 15th July, 2019. The first phase had two rounds as under: (1) In the first round all open seats are filled with the eligible candidates as per merit irrespective of category-Open Round. (2) In the second round, all category seats are filled. In this round the reserved category candidates who got a seat in the open round by virtue of merit are allotted a better college as per the respective category reservations and as per their prioritized web options-Right to slide. (2) In the second round, all category seats are filled. In this round the reserved category candidates who got a seat in the open round by virtue of merit are allotted a better college as per the respective category reservations and as per their prioritized web options-Right to slide. The following is the data of admissions as per Phase-I. AU Area Categories I phase Open BCA BCB BCC BCD BCE SC ST Total Seats 742 742 104 147 15 104 59 223 89 741 M.R.candidates slided from open to cate­gory seat 39 69 10 89 5 4 0 216 SVU Area Categories I phase Open BCA BCB BCC BCD BCE SC ST Total Seats 598 598 84 120 12 84 49 179 72 600 M.R.candidates slided from open to category seat 38 65 1 43 17 5 3 172 SWI Area Categories I phase Open BCA BCB BCC BCD BCE SC ST Total Seats 62 62 9 13 1 9 5 19 8 64 M.R.Candidates slided from open to category seat 0 4 0 14 0 0 0 18 8. It is submitted that the University commenced the 2nd phase of counseling. (a) to fill up the seats vacated by MRCs in the slided category and unreported seats among the reserved category students. They were filled up with the same reserved category students and then (b) the unreported open category seats to be filled up with students of all categories in the order of merit. The above course enabled students to exercise another option in the second phase and to ensure that the meritorious amongst all category students secure another chance to secure a better choice than the allocated seat." The abovesaid information, in the considered opinion of this Court, dispels the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners with regard to loss of 76 seats by the reserved categories. Therefore, the contention that in view of non-adherence to G.O. Rt. No. 550, Higher Education (EC.2) Department, dated 30.7.2001, the reserved category candidates lost the opportunity of getting seats vacated by the MRC candidates, cannot stand for scrutiny and does not hold water. 14. In this context, it could by highly essential and appropriate to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dega Venkata Harsha Vardhan v. Akula Venkata Harshavardhan (supra), wherein the Apex Court at Paragraph Nos. 14. In this context, it could by highly essential and appropriate to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dega Venkata Harsha Vardhan v. Akula Venkata Harshavardhan (supra), wherein the Apex Court at Paragraph Nos. 32 to 34 held as under: "32. The introduction of online counselling appears to have brought about some changes in the process of counselling which might necessitate an amendment of the impugned Government Order for complete harmony. Earlier, what was done in two stages is done in online system at first stage itself. The Andhra Pradesh Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions into under-Graduate Professional Courses through Common Entrance Test) Rules, 1993 and in particular Rule 8(2) to thereof may also require amendment. However, the recent introduction of the online system could not have been a ground for setting aside the impugned notification which has been in force for seventeen years, and the validity whereof has been upheld by a Full Bench of the High Court. The judgment and order under appeal is unsustainable. 33. It appears that the procedure prescribed in the impugned Government Order cannot be implemented without some minor deviation consequential to the introduction of the system of online counselling. Such deviations do not in our view invalidate the admissions. It would, however, be open to the Government to amend the impugned Government Order and or alternatively issue a fresh Government Order to harmonise online counselling with statutory rules and Government Orders. The statutory rules may, if necessary, be amended. However, the admission made this year should not be disturbed. Any vacancies may be filled up on merit basis without disturbing the allocation of seats for candidates of the respective categories. 34. The appeals are, thus allowed and the judgment and order of the High Court under appeal, is set aside. No order as to costs." While pointing out Paragraph No. 33 of the abovesaid order of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is submitted by the learned Advocate General that the procedure adopted by the respondent-University cannot be faulted. As mentioned supra, the Committee appointed by this Court submitted a report, and in response to the two terms of reference framed by this Court, the Committee found the action of the respondent-University with regard to filling up of the seats vacated by the MRC candidates and maintenance of 50% quota, as correct. 15. As mentioned supra, the Committee appointed by this Court submitted a report, and in response to the two terms of reference framed by this Court, the Committee found the action of the respondent-University with regard to filling up of the seats vacated by the MRC candidates and maintenance of 50% quota, as correct. 15. In the instant case, no amendments were made, as directed in the above judgment, as on the date of the completion of the second phase of counseling, as was done in the State of Telangana. The State of Telangana, after judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above referred case, framed the Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS and BDS Courses) Rules, 2017 vide G.O. Ms. No. 114, HM & FW (C1) Department, dated 5.7.2017. In this context, it may be appropriate to refer to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the High Court for the State of Telangana in Writ Petition Nos. 16637 of 2019, 17285 of 2019 and 17293 of 2019, on 19.8.2019. A copy of the said judgment is placed on record by the learned Advocate General. While referring to the said judgment, it is argued by the learned Advocate General that the same contentions and submissions, as now sought to be advanced before this Court, were advanced before the High Court for the State of Telangana also, and the said High Court declined to accept the same and dismissed the writ petitions. It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the said judgment rendered by the High Court for the State of Telangana has no binding effect on this Court. On the said aspect, there cannot be any dispute. But, at the same time, it cannot be said that the same does not have any persuasive value. A perusal of the said judgment demonstrates, in manifest terms, that the only distinction between the said case and case on hand is that as far as the Telangana State is concerned, pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dega Venkata Harsha Vardhan v. Akula Venkata Harshavardhan (supra), the State of Telangana framed the abovementioned Rules in 2017, but insofar as the State of Andhra Pradesh is concerned, the situation is that pursuant to the said judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the State Government, vide G.O. Rt. No. 21, HM & FW (CI) Department, dated 10.1.2019, appointed an expert committee to make suggestions on the process of counseling by web. It is clear from the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent-University that the said Committee made the following suggestions to Paragraph No. 5 of G.O. Rt. No. 550, Higher Education (EC.2) Department, dated 30.7.2001. "It is submitted that the Committee has suggested the following changes and selection procedure to the existing G.O. Rt. No. 550 specifically in 5(ii) of the said G.O. Sl. No. Original G.O. 550 Amendment proposed in G.O. 550 1. 5 (I) In the counseling process, the seats to be filled by open competition should be filled up first, wherein the candidates should be called for counseling based on merit alone irrespective of whether they belong to SC, ST or BC in accordance with the instructions issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 996, Employment & Social Welfare, dated 11th November, 1975. 5 (i) The counseling shall be conducted online web based counseling, in the counseling process open competition seats should be filled up first basing on the options exercised by all the candidates in order of merit irrespective of whether they belong to OC, SC, ST or BC in accordance with the instructions issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 996, Employment & Social Welfare, dated 11th November, 1975 and as amended from time to time. 2. 5 (ii) Next, reservation categories like SC/ST/BC candidates will be counselled to fill up the seats earmarked for them in their respective categories, During this process, if a candidate belonging to scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe/ / Backward Classes who had taken admission under open competition, opts for a better branch or a better college of his choice for which he or she would be eligible as per the rules of reservation, the seat vacated by him or her in open competition shall be filled with a candidate from the same reservation category only, in order of merit. 5 (ii) (a). 5 (ii) (a). Next, reservation categories like SC/ST/BC seats will be filled against the seats earmarked for them in their respective categories, During this process, if a candidate belonging to scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe/ Backward Classes who was allotted admission under open competition, will be slided/ re-allotted for a better branch or a better college of his/her choice for which he or she would be eligible as per the rules of reservation and he/she will be treated as open category candidate for all practical purposes duly considering him/her as ‘MRC’ (Meritorious Reserved candidates) candidate. 5 (ii) b. During the process MRC candidates vacated in open competition shall be filled with a candidate from the same reserved category during the subsequent counseling only, Basing on if, MRC candidates joined in slided / re-allotted college, the vacated seat in open competition filled with candidates from the same category only. If, the MRC candidate has not joined in slided/ re allotted college of their choice of option the vacated seat in open competition will be filled with open competition by merit. The committee also suggested the following selection procedure for Web Based Counseling for all UG courses offered by the Dr. NTRUHS. SELECTIONS PROCEDURE: i. Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences will announce the dates for exercising the web options after verification of original certificates at the centers notified. ii. The selections will be course wise and University area wise. iii. As per the G.O.Ms.No.42, the UR seats (Un Reserved seats) will be filled first and then the local seats will be filled. For UR seats both local and non-local candidates are eligible. iv. All the open competition seats in a course shall be filled first, basing on the options exercised by the candidates irrespective of their categories i.e., SC/ST/BC/OC in order of merit. v. c. Next, reservation categories like SC/ST/BC seats will be filled against the seats earmarked for them in their respective categories, During this process, if a candidate belonging to scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe/ Backward Classes who was allotted admission under open competition, will be slided / reallotted for a better college of his/her choice for which he or she would be eligible as per the rules of reservation. Then he/she will be treated as open category candidate for all practical purposes duly considering him/her as ‘MRC’ (Meritorious Reserved Candidate) candidate. Then he/she will be treated as open category candidate for all practical purposes duly considering him/her as ‘MRC’ (Meritorious Reserved Candidate) candidate. d. During the process the open category seats vacated by MRC candidates shall be kept vacant until further counseling. vi. All the selected candidates will be given selection orders to join respective colleges on or before the prescribed date as indicated in the provisional allotment order. vii. During the process MRC candidates vacated in open competition shall be filled with a candidate from the same reserved category during the sub sequent counseling only, Basing on if, MRC candidates joined in slided / re-allotted college, the vacated seat in open competition filled with candidates from the same category only. If, the MRC candidate has not joined in slided/re-allotted college of their choice of option the vacated seat in open competition will be filled with open competition by merit. viii. Provisional allotment order will be issued through online by the selection committee constituted by the Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences with the details of date of reporting at the respective college.” It is also pertinent to note that subsequently, the State Government issued G.O. Rt. No. 111, Higher Education (E.C.) Department, dated 13.8.2019, bringing certain amendments pursuant to the suggestions made by the aforesaid expert committee. One of the contentions raised in these writ petitions is since the said suggestions did not transform into Rules or Regulations or Orders of the Government, the same could not have been adopted by the respondent-University for filling up the seats. Even if the above suggestions are totally ignored, the only aspect which remains to be examined, is whether the respondents adhered to G.O. Rt. No. 550, Higher Education (EC.2) Department, dated 30.7.2001 or not. 16. A reading of the order of Division Bench of the High Court for the State of Telangana in Writ Petition Nos. 16637 of 2019, 17285 of 2019 and 17293 of 2019, dated 19.8.2019, shows that the petitioners therein also raised the same contentions, as now sought to be agitated in these cases on hand. It may be appropriate to refer to the same. 17. 16637 of 2019, 17285 of 2019 and 17293 of 2019, dated 19.8.2019, shows that the petitioners therein also raised the same contentions, as now sought to be agitated in these cases on hand. It may be appropriate to refer to the same. 17. The High Court for the State of Telangana in the above mentioned judgment dated 19.8.2019, referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dega Venkata Harsha Vardhan v. Akula Venkata Harshavardhan (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that introduction of online counseling brought some changes in the process of counseling which might necessitate amendment of G.O. Rt. No. 550, Higher Education (EC.2) Department, dated 30.7.2001, for complete harmony in the mode of counseling. In the abovesaid judgment, Division Bench of the High Court for the State of Telangana also observed that it would make little different for the deliberations even if G.O. Rt. No. 550, Higher Education (EC.2) Department, dated 30.7.2001, being no longer in operation. The aspect of sliding for more than one time and the consequence of the same was also considered by the Telangana High Court, obviously keeping in view the settled principles of law. In the said judgment, the consequences of the said process were also noticed while assigning cogent and sound reasons. In fact, the final particulars of allotment of the seats, by way of a tabular form, signed by the Registrar of the respondent-University, is filed. In the said judgment, the consequences of the said process were also noticed while assigning cogent and sound reasons. In fact, the final particulars of allotment of the seats, by way of a tabular form, signed by the Registrar of the respondent-University, is filed. The same reads as under: Category No. of MBBS seats allotted in AU area as per rules of reservations for various reservation categories in 2019-­20 admissions as on today 23.07.2019 Phase -I No. of MBBS seats filled after 27515 in AU Area in 2019-20 admissions as on today 23.07.2019 phase-II No. of MBBS seats actually filled above 27515 in AU Area in 2019-­20 admissions as on today 23.07.2019 phase-II Total seats allotted phase II MRC candidates BCA 104 98 42 140 36 BCB 147 139 72 211 64 BCC 15 16 8 24 9 BCD 104 83 107 190 86 BCE 59 54 10 64 5 SC 223 222 5 227 4 ST 89 88 1 89 0 741 700 245 945 204 Category No. of MBBS seats allotted in SVU area as per rules of reservations for various reservation categories in 2019-­20 admissions as on today 23.07.2019 Phase-I No. of MBBS seats filled after 33426 in SVU Area in 2019-20 admissions as on today 23.07.2019 phase-II No. of MBBS seats actually filled above 33426 in SVU Area in 2019-20 admissions as on today 23.07.2019 phase-II Total seats allotted phase II MRC candidates BCA 84 87 35 122 38 BCB 120 105 77 182 62 BCC 12 11 2 13 1 BCD 84 61 65 126 42 BCE 49 48 18 66 17 SC 179 180 4 184 5 ST 72 73 2 75 3 600 565 203 768 168 18. With regard to the submission of the learned Senior Counsel Sri KG. Krishna Murthy that unless the process contemplated under Clause (i) of Paragraph No. 5 of G.O. Rt. No. 550, Higher Education (EC.2) Department, dated 30.7.2001, is concluded, the procedure, as stipulated under Paragraph No. 5(ii) cannot be taken up, it may be appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dega Venkata Harsha Vardhan v. Akula Venkata Harshavardhan (supra). No. 550, Higher Education (EC.2) Department, dated 30.7.2001, is concluded, the procedure, as stipulated under Paragraph No. 5(ii) cannot be taken up, it may be appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dega Venkata Harsha Vardhan v. Akula Venkata Harshavardhan (supra). In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while setting aside the orders passed by the Composite High Court, expressed the opinion that after the introduction of the Web system, strict adherence to the language employed in the said clauses is not possible. Having regard to the same, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel cannot be sustained. Having regard to the above aspects, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that reserved categories lost their chances of securing some more seats. Therefore, this Court finds no merit in these writ petitions. 19. Before parting with this judgment, this Court is of the opinion that the process of counseling can be conducted in a more transparent manner so that no stakeholder can have any sort of doubt that he/she is deprived of the seat for which he/she is legitimately entitled to. This Court deems it appropriate to suggest to the State Government to appoint a High-level committee consisting of two senior most I.A.S. Officers of Secretary level, two versatile academicians/Professors and two designated Senior Advocates of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, to look into the various issues pertaining to the process of counseling and for submitting a detailed report, making suggestions for holding the counseling in a more transparent manner and to have a quietus to the recurring problem. 20. With the above observations, the writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs of the writ petition. 21. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the writ petitions stand closed.