Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 306 (TS)

Sai Chakresh Ranga v. Union Of India

2020-02-24

T.VINOD KUMAR

body2020
JUDGMENT T.Vinod Kumar, J. - The present Writ Petition is filed seeking for issuance of writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the respondents and in particular the 10th to 12th respondents who have given admission to the petitioners in 1st year MBA course (Category-B), which admission is sought to be cancelled on the ground that the petitioners not meeting the prescribed eligibility criteria and having pursued the degree course through distance mode in the State other than the State of Telangana and hence marked deficiency which the petitioners were called upon to remedy by obtaining equivalence certificate from the 5th respondent to enable the 10th to 12th respondents to continue with the admission of the petitioners in the first year MBA course (category-B) management quota for the academic year 2019-20, as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust. 2. Heard Sri. A. Sameer Kumar Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jitender, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, learned Government Pleader for Higher Education for 3rd respondent, Sri Ch. Jagannatha Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the 5th respondent and Smt. P. Sarada, learned Standing Counsel for the 9th respondent. Brief facts: 3. It is claimed that the petitioners are born and brought up at Hyderabad and had schooling at Hyderabad, and had passed out the 10th Standard examination during the year 2012-14. Thereafter, it is claimed by the petitioners, that the petitioners have pursued Intermediate education at Hyderabad and passed out during the year 2014-17. Though the duration of the said Intermediate course is of 2 years, all the petitioners took longer time to complete the same "compartmentally". It is claimed that while the petitioners were studying the Intermediate course, in order to make up for the one year lost, the petitioners enrolled themselves for pursuing graduation course of 3 years through distance mode and had joined the 26th respondent college during the year 2016. It is claimed by the petitioners that the 26th respondent college where the petitioners had obtained admission for pursuing under graduation course was originally affiliated to Kakatiya University, which it is claimed has changed its affiliation to Acharya Nagarjuna University Centre for Distance Education. The petitioners claims to have pursued under graduation course during the period 2016-19 through Distance Education mode and has obtained the bachelor degree in June, 2019. The petitioners claims to have pursued under graduation course during the period 2016-19 through Distance Education mode and has obtained the bachelor degree in June, 2019. Basing on the said certificate of graduation, the petitioners have applied and appeared for the Telangana Integrated Common Entrance Test conducted by the 5th respondent for admission into Master of Business Administration course (MBA) for the year 2019-20. Though, the petitioners qualified the TSICET held, but could not secure admission under the Convenor quota (category-A), but however were able to secure admission in category-B which relates to management quota in the 10, 11 and 12th respondent colleges. Upon securing admission into the respondent colleges, the petitioners claims to have made the payment of fees and started attending the classes for pursuing the post graduation course of MBA, while that being so, the 9th respondent who is required to ratify the admissions seems to have raised an objection with regard to the qualifying examination certificate of the petitioner being obtained through distance mode from a University in a State other than the State of Telangana and, as such, the petitioner not being eligible for admission in the MBA course. It is the said action of 5th respondent that is being impugned in the present Writ Petition on the ground that by virtue of the provisions of A.P. Reorganisation Act, 2014 and the Article 371-D of the Constitution of India, equal opportunities in matters of education in the State of Andhra Pradesh and the State of Telangana have been provided for and the petitioners admission could not be cancelled on the ground that the graduation certificate obtained by the petitioner through distance mode is from the University which is located outside of the State of Telangana. 4. On the other hand, Smt. P. Sarada, learned Standing Counsel for the 5th respondent submitted that the eligibility criteria for seeking admission into category-B MBA courses for the year 2019-20 is (1) the candidate should be an Indian National; (2) should have secured a rank in TSICET, 2019; (3) for admission into MBA course, the candidate should have passed the qualifying examination i.e., any degree from recognised University in India in 10+2+3 on the date of his/her admission into MBA programme. It is claimed by the learned Standing Counsel that since, the petitioners do not meet the requirement of passing the qualifying examination in 10+2+3 pattern, the petitioners are not entitled for admission into the MBA course and it is for the said reason, the 9th respondent did not ratify the admission of the petitioner with the respondent colleges. 5. Sri Ch. Jagannadha Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the 5th respondent submits that the petitioner had obtained graduation through Distance mode from Acharya Nagarjuna University and as per the guidelines issued by UGC dated 23.08.2013, which is much prior to the bifurcation of the State into two separate States i.e., the State of Andhra Pradesh and the State of Telangana, the UGC had specified that the Universities which are established and offering programmes through off campus shall operate only within the territorial jurisdiction. 6. Learned Standing Counsel would submit that having regard to the guidelines issued by the UGC, it is clear that the qualifying examination certificate obtained by the petitioner by pursuing the under-graduation course through 26th respondent college is clearly prohibited and further the University could not have allowed the 26th respondent college which is situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of the said University. The function by admitting students and allowing them to take examination conducted by the said University, and as such the certificate of graduation obtained by the petitioner cannot be recognised for granting admission into post graduation. Further, it is also submitted that the said communication of the 2nd respondent having been issued much prior to the bifurcation of the State itself, it is not open for the petitioner to claim the protection under the Reorganisation Act or based on Article 371-D of the Constitution of India. Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that the purport of the above instructions of the 2nd respondent is that the candidates qualifying from the particular University in any recognised course would be considered as local candidates within the jurisdiction of that particular University, when such students seek further admission in higher courses and such students would be considered as non-local outside the territorial jurisdiction of such University and would have compete under the category of non-local in the other Universities in order to secure admission therein. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the only reason why the petitioner's admission was not being approved and ratified, is only on account of the fact that the petitioner having sought admission during the year 2016 in a University outside the territorial jurisdiction of the 5th respondent University and as such the petitioner was not eligible for being admission. 7. Having given due consideration to the submissions made on either side, the issue that falls for consideration in this Writ Petition is as to i) whether the petitioners meet the eligibility criteria of having passed the qualifying exam in 10+2+3 pattern; ii) whether petitioners are eligible to seek admission on the basis of the certificate of qualifying examination through distance mode from a University which is situated outside the State of Telangana; and iii) whether the petitioner is protected by way of Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act on account of the said Act providing for equitable opportunities and facilities in the matter of education. 8. It is to be seen that the 9th respondent while issuing the notification dated 28.08.2019 for the TSICET, category 'B' Admissions, specified the requirement which is to be complied for seeking admission into MBA course, is to have passing the qualifying examination in any degree from recognised University in India in 10+2+3 pattern. The above eligibility criteria specified itself makes it clear that the candidates who have secured the qualifying degree in the pattern of passing one exam after the other with the minimum period of education specified for such course are being eligible to seek admission. 9. On the basis of the above eligibility criteria prescribed, it would be clear that the petitioners having passed his 10th Standard in 2014, Intermediate in 2017 and having secured admission into under-graduation course of Bachelor of Business Administration / B.Com (Computers) for the period from 2016-2019 and having completed the same in June, 2019, cannot be said to be meeting the eligibility criteria, as the petitioners did not complete the +2 intermediate course exam, before they sought enrolment and admission into +3 under graduation course. In normal course in order to be eligible to secure admission under the 10+2+3 pattern, the petitioners were required to enrol / seek admission into undergraduation course of 3 years during the year 2017-2020 upon completion of intermediate education in the year 2017. In normal course in order to be eligible to secure admission under the 10+2+3 pattern, the petitioners were required to enrol / seek admission into undergraduation course of 3 years during the year 2017-2020 upon completion of intermediate education in the year 2017. Though, it is claimed by the petitioners that in order to make up for the loss of one year (extra year) in qualifying the intermediate examination, the admissions had been obtained for pursuing under-graduation course in the year 2016 itself, would not regularize the otherwise overlapping studies as meeting the eligibility criteria specified. In a judgment rendered by the Madras High Court in the case of R. Thirunavukkarasau Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, 2012 5 CTC 129 observed as under - "58. That 1+1 is not equal to 3, is something that does not require a reference to an Expert. Though we have to come to a stage where the younger generation seeks the assistance of a calculator even to find out the sum total of two single digit numbers, I do not think that what is so obvious should also be referred to an Expert Committee." 10. Since, the 10th to 12th respondents have granted provisional admission to the petitioner under category-B i.e., Management Quota, the claim of the petitioners that the admission cannot be cancelled now on the ground of the petitioners not being able to make good the deficiency as noted by the 9th respondent viz., the petitioners not having met the eligibility criteria of having obtained the qualifying exam in 10+2+3 pattern, no fault can be found with the said respondents cancelling the admissions. 11. As the petitioners case fails on the issue of petitioners not meeting the eligibility criteria prescribed for securing admission into MBA first year during the year 2019-2020 under Category 'B' admissions, there is no need for this court to deliberate on the other issues, which can be gone into when such issue arises in an appropriate case. 12. In view of the conclusions reached as above, the writ petition is devoid of merit. 13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 14. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.