ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following relief: “To issue writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No 4 and 5 herein in passing the resolution dated 05.02.2021 and orally rejecting the admission of the petitioners into their respective courses and not permitting the petitioners herein to attend classes as illegal arbitrary and colorable exercise of power and consequently set aside the resolution dated 05.02.2022 of the 4th respondent herein and direct the respondents herein to admit the 1St petitioner herein into M.A Telugu course of the 4th respondent and 2nd petitioner herein into M.Com course of the 4th respondent herein as per the counselling of APPGCET-2021 and to permit the petitioners herein to attend classes.” 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the fourth respondent – Rayalaseema University. 3. Heard Sri K. Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S. Appadhara Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.4 – Rayalaseema University and perused the record. 4. The case of the petitioners is that, the first petitioner studied Master of Arts (M.A) in Economics in the year 2017 and M.B.A (Finance) in the year 2019 in the fourth respondent - Rayalaseema University. 5. The second petitioner studied M.B.A (Finance) in the year 2020 in the fourth respondent - Rayalaseema University. 6. Both the petitioners belong to S.C Category. They appeared for APPGCET-2021 for admission into P.G. Courses. The first petitioner appeared for Common Entrance Test seeking admission into M.A Telugu course and the second petitioner into M.Com Course. They secured rank of 362 and 439 respectively. 7. During the online counselling, the first petitioner was allotted a seat in M.A. Telugu under OC-General-SVU Category in Rayalaseema University. He was directed to report at the allotted college along with the original certificates on or before 11.02.2022 and accordingly, he reported at the fourth respondent – University on 09.02.2022 and completed all reporting and joining formalities and he was admitted into the said course. 8. The second petitioner was allotted a seat in M.Com during the online counselling under OC-General-SVU Category in Rayalaseema University. 8. The second petitioner was allotted a seat in M.Com during the online counselling under OC-General-SVU Category in Rayalaseema University. He was directed to report at the allotted college along with the original certificates on or before 11.02.2022 and accordingly, he reported at the fourth respondent – University on 09.02.2022 and completed all reporting and joining formalities and he was admitted into the said course. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, while things stood thus, to their utter surprise and dismay, they were called by the Registrar of the fourth respondent – University on 14.02.2022 and they were orally informed that, they are not being admitted into the said courses as stated supra and their admission into the said courses is being rejected and they would not be permitted to attend classes, as they had already completed P.G Courses earlier. Then, the petitioners requested the fourth respondent to issue appropriate written proceedings rejecting their admission. But, it was not furnished to the petitioner till date. Questioning the oral rejection of the petitioners admissions by the fourth respondent, after completion of the admission formalities, the petitioners are constrained to file this writ petition. 10. The petitioners also filed an application under Right to Information Act, seeking the proceedings and the reasons for refusal of admission vide application dated 16.02.2021. However, no material is made available to them till date. However, the petitioners were provided with a resolution of the 16th Executive Council of the fourth respondent University. The 16th Executive Council Meeting of the fourth respondent University passed a Resolution dated 05.02.2021 to allow second P.G. Course without fee reimbursement and accommodation in the hostels, however, students are not allowed for admission into third P.G course in the University campus. It came to the knowledge of the petitioners that, in furtherance of the said resolution dated 05.02.2021 of the Executive Council of the fourth respondent University, the fourth respondent has addressed a letter to the second respondent requesting to impose a condition in the Notification of APPGCET-2021. But, such condition is not included in the APPGCET-2021 Notification. As such, the learned counsel contends that the contention of the respondents that a student shall not be permitted to study third P.G. course in the University Campus is illegal, unconstitutional and violation of settled principles of law. 11. But, such condition is not included in the APPGCET-2021 Notification. As such, the learned counsel contends that the contention of the respondents that a student shall not be permitted to study third P.G. course in the University Campus is illegal, unconstitutional and violation of settled principles of law. 11. He contends that, being a double graduate is not a bar to pursue other courses and that, there is no law or regulation which prohibits education and the 16th Executive Council Resolution dated 05.02.2021 of the fourth respondent University is violative of Right to Higher Education and basic Human Right to Education. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that, the conduct of the petitioners is good and no complaint whatsoever is made against them during their career in the fourth respondent University. Right to Higher Education is a basic human right and the same is enshrined under Article 26(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 and Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966. Learned counsel further submits that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the recent case of Farzana Batool vs. Union of India [W.P. (Civil). No.364 of 2021] has categorically held that, while the right to pursue higher (professional) education has not been spelt out as a fundamental right in Part-III of the Constitution of India, it bears emphasis that access to professional education is not a governmental largesse. Instead, the State has an affirmative obligation to facilitate access to education, at all levels. While concluding the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the petitioners belong to S.C Category and with great zeal and determination, they have come so far and they wanted to study further to enhance their skills and if they are not admitted into the respective courses, the petitioners would be put to irreparable loss and damage for no fault of them. 13. On the other hand, on behalf of the fourth respondent – University, the learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioners suppressed the fact that the first petitioner has completed third Post Graduate i.e. M.A (English) during the academic year 2019-2021 and the second petitioner has completed first P.G. i.e M.A (Telugu) during the academic year 2016-2018, as such, the first petitioner has completed three Post Graduations and the second petitioner has completed two Post Graduations. Now, the first petitioner is seeking admission into fourth Post Graduation course and the second petitioner is seeking admission into third Post Graduation course. 14. Learned Standing Counsel contends that the 16th Executive Council of the fourth respondent University passed a Resolution dated 05.02.2021 to allow the students for second Post Graduation course without fee reimbursement and accommodation in the hostels, but did not allow the students for admission into third Post Graduation Course in the University campus. 15. He contends that, the decision taken by the Executive Council is only to create opportunity to the students who would like to pursue post-graduation for the first time in the University campus, but not for those students who have already completed Post-Graduation courses and also utilized the library and other and other facilities of the campus. It is submitted that, by virtue of the above said resolution, the students belonging to various categories are entitled to pursue their PG courses in the University campus. 16. Learned Standing Counsel admitted that the fourth respondent University addressed a letter to the second respondent requesting to impose the conditions in the postgraduation admission process only to provide seats to more students who want to pursue P.G course in the University and only to fulfil the dream of the students belonging to various categories into the campus and achieving all-round development in their personal and professional careers, the University took the decision not to give admission to the students like the petitioners. The learned Standing Counsel finally submits that, there is no malafide intention on the part of the University and sought to dismiss the writ petition. 17. The petitioners filed their reply affidavit, reiterating the averments made in the affidavit filed along with the writ petition. They contend that, they are not asking hostel accommodation and scholarship, though they belong to S.C category. The petitioners intend to utilize the facilities of University Library and expertise of faculty to prepare for various competitive examinations while pursuing Post Graduate course in the fourth respondent University, as such, denial of admission of petitioners in the University campus under the guise of the resolution of the Executive Council is nothing but denying their future occupational career prospects and the same is in violation of Article 19 of the Constitution of India and requested to allow the writ petition. 18. 18. Having heard the submissions of respective counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears that, the first petitioner has already completed three Post Graduate Degrees in the fourth respondent University and the second respondent has completed two Post Graduate Degrees in the fourth respondent University. Now, the first petitioner is seeking admission into M.A (Telugu) Course and the second petitioner is seeking admission into M.Com Course. If, the admissions are given to them, it would be the fourth Post Graduate Admission to the first petitioner and third Post Graduate Admission to the second petitioner. 19. The Government of Andhra Pradesh i.e. the first respondent herein, in exercise of powers conferred under Sections 3 and 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 (Act No.5 of 1983), prescribed Rules for conducting Andhra Pradesh Post Graduate Common Entrance Test (APPGCET) for candidates seeking admission into first year of General Post Graduate Programs such as M.A., M.Com., etc., offered by the State funded Universities under the administrative control of Higher Education Department and their Constituent/Affiliated [Government and Private (Aided/Unaided)] Colleges including Minority Educational Institutions in the State and Admissions through a computerised single window system of Counselling, vide G.O.Ms.No.44, Higher Education (EC) 23rd August, 2021. These Rules are notified in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, Part-I, Extraordinary on 26.08.2021. These Rules are applicable to all Post Graduate Programs offered by the State funded Universities and other institutions in the State. 20. The eligibility criteria for appearing in APPGCET is provided under Rule-1 as follows: i. The candidate should be of Indian Nationality. ii. The candidate should satisfy ‘local/non-local’ status requirements as laid down in the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission) order, 1974, as subsequently amended. iii. The candidate should have passed or appeared for the final year of relevant under graduate or equivalent examination to seek admission into the Post Graduate Programs and its relevant specialization. iv. The list of Post Graduate (PG) Programs offered by the institutions and the eligibility criteria to each of the programs will be notified in details along with notification of APPGCET for various categories such as CATEGORY –I PG Program in Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences CATEGORY-II PG Programs in Commerce and Education CATEGORY – III PG Programs in Sciences 21. The list of Post Graduate (PG) Programs offered by the institutions and the eligibility criteria to each of the programs will be notified in details along with notification of APPGCET for various categories such as CATEGORY –I PG Program in Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences CATEGORY-II PG Programs in Commerce and Education CATEGORY – III PG Programs in Sciences 21. In the said Rules, admission procedure is provided as extracted hereinunder: i. There shall be no other mode of admissions for all P.G Programs in the Institutions other than the Single Window System for APPGCET Admissions in the State. ii. No Institution shall issue a notification and call for applications for admission into P.G Programs separately or individually. iii. The selection of candidates and allotment of P.G Programs/Institutions shall be solely on the basis of merit as adjudged by the rank obtained in APPGCET duly following the rules of reservation as applicable. 22. In the said Rules, the eligibility criteria for admission is provided under Rule-3, as extracted hereunder: “Eligibility criteria for admission: The eligibility criteria for Admission into Post Graduate Programs shall be as mentioned below: i) The candidate should be an Indian National. ii) The candidate should have passed the appropriate qualifying examination or equivalent examination as on the date of his/her Counselling. The candidate should also have secured a rank in the Post Graduate Common Entrance Test (APPGCET) and satisfy other conditions as laid down in these Rules. iii) The candidate should satisfy local/non-local status requirement as laid down in the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions) Orders, 1974 as subsequently amended for admission into all seats across all Institutions other than the Category-B seats in Private (Aided/Unaided) Colleges including Minority Educational Institutions. 23. On careful examination of the eligibility criteria prescribed for appearing in APPGCET and eligibility criteria for admission into Post Graduate Programs, as provided under the Post Graduate Common Entrance Test (APPGCET) and Admission Rules, 2021, there is no mention about such condition/restriction denying admission into Post Graduate courses, more than one, if, the candidate fulfils the eligibility criteria for admission, he will be admitted into P.G Program. It is also an admitted fact that, in the common entrance test notification issued for APPGCET-2021, there is no such restriction for candidates to prosecute their studies for more than one P.G course. It is also an admitted fact that, in the common entrance test notification issued for APPGCET-2021, there is no such restriction for candidates to prosecute their studies for more than one P.G course. However, the Resolution passed by the 16th Executive Council of the University dated 05.02.2021 is coming in the way for the admissions to the petitioners. In fact, the fourth respondent – University addressed a letter to the A.P. State Council for Higher Education i.e. the second respondent herein to impose the said condition in the Notification of APPGCET-2021. But, it appears in the APPGCET-2021 Notification, no such condition was imposed. Admittedly, the petitioners are not seeking any hostel accommodation and scholarships, though they belong to S.C Category. Under these circumstances, denying the petitioners to attend classes by the fourth respondent, after completion of the admission procedure by the petitioners, appears to be illegal, arbitrary and unjust. 24. It is the contention of the fourth respondent that, the 16th Executive Council Meeting of the fourth respondent - University held on 05.02.2021 has resolved to allow second P.G. course without fee reimbursement and accommodation in the hostels. However, students are not allowed for admission into third P.G. course in the University campus. 25. In fact, in the light of the Resolution passed by the 16th Executive Council of the University, the fourth respondent addressed a letter to the second respondent i.e. Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education to include the condition of not providing admission to the candidates who are seeking admission into P.G. Courses more than once. But, it appears that the said request is not considered by the second respondent and such condition is not included in the APPGCET-2021 Notification. However, in the absence of any restriction, seeking admission into more than one Post Graduate Course in subsequent academic years is not a bar as per the Andhra Pradesh Post Graduate Common Entrance Test Admission Rules, 2021 and also as per the General Instructions of the APPGCET -2021 Notification. As such, in our considered opinion, the action of the fourth respondent – University in rejecting the admission of the petitioners and not permitting the petitioners to attend the classes is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of principles of natural justice. 26. As such, in our considered opinion, the action of the fourth respondent – University in rejecting the admission of the petitioners and not permitting the petitioners to attend the classes is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of principles of natural justice. 26. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the recent case of Farzana Batool vs. Union of India (referred supra), while dealing with medical admissions, explained the importance of education and observed as extracted hereunder: “9 Given that the issue raised in this case concerns access to education, albeit at the professional level, we would like to take this opportunity to underscore the importance of creating an enabling environment to make it possible for students such as the petitioners to pursue professional education. While the right to pursue higher (professional) education has not been spelt out as a fundamental right in Part III of the Constitution, it bears emphasis that access to professional education is not a governmental largesse. Instead, the State has an affirmative obligation to facilitate access to education, at all levels. 10. This obligation assumes far greater importance for students whose background (by virtue of such characteristics as caste, class, gender, religion, disability and geographical region) imposes formidable obstacles on their path to accessing quality education. Indeed, as the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (“ICESCR Committee”) notes in General Comment 13, “As an empowerment right, education is the primary vehicle by which economically and socially marginalized adults and children can lift themselves out of poverty and obtain the means to participate fully in their communities”. 11. Article 26(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is a source of persuasive value, obligates every State Party to ensure that technical and professional education is made generally available and that higher education is equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. In its General Comment 13, the ICESCR committee outlined four essential features that education at all levels must possess. Pertinently, one such feature is ‘accessibility’. Two of the components of accessibility highlighted by the ICESCR Committee bear emphasis. First, the guarantee of non-discrimination, in relation to which it notes that, “education must be accessible to all, especially the most vulnerable groups, in law and fact, without discrimination on any of the prohibited grounds”. Pertinently, one such feature is ‘accessibility’. Two of the components of accessibility highlighted by the ICESCR Committee bear emphasis. First, the guarantee of non-discrimination, in relation to which it notes that, “education must be accessible to all, especially the most vulnerable groups, in law and fact, without discrimination on any of the prohibited grounds”. Second, economic accessibility, meaning that the state party must take steps to ensure that financial constraints do not come in the way of accessing education. 12. The ICESCR Committee pertinently notes that disparities in spending policies that result in differing qualities of education for persons residing in different geographic locations may constitute discrimination under the covenant. Each state party is required, inter alia, to fulfill the right to education, by facilitating and providing for its realization. Pursuant to these obligations which India has undertaken by being a signatory to the Covenant, the Union MHFW and the DHSL shall ensure proper co-ordination so that students allocated colleges under the central pool seats are not put to hardship in enrolling once they have been duly allocated their seats. Specifically, the Union MHFW and the DHSL can consider appointing a nodal officer tasked with the responsibility of ensuring that students who are duly nominated under the central pool seats are in fact admitted in their chosen course of study. Such an officer can serve as a one-point contact for students who may otherwise face numerous difficulties in securing their admission, even after they have been allocated the seat. The details of such officer can be widely publicized on the websites of the aforesaid two authorities. Such an institutional framework will ensure that students are not left in the lurch due to lack of help in securing their legitimate admission to the appropriate course. In this way, it will help remedy the broader problem of which the case before us is a symptom.” 27. In the light of the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court, as extracted supra and for the reasons stated above, this writ petition is allowed with the following directions: i. The Resolution dated 05.2.2021 passed by the fifth respondent is set-aside; ii. The fourth respondent is directed to admit the first petitioner into M.A. Telugu Course and second petitioner into M.Com course and permit them to attend classes. 28. There shall be no order as to costs. 29. The fourth respondent is directed to admit the first petitioner into M.A. Telugu Course and second petitioner into M.Com course and permit them to attend classes. 28. There shall be no order as to costs. 29. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.