ORDER : The petitioner prays for a mandamus declaring the action of respondents in not regularizing petitioner’s admission No.535 for course of D.El.Ed. in 7th respondent college in spite of the petitioner being qualified in the AP DEE CET (2018) conducted by 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India and for a consequential direction to the respondents to regularize the petitioner’s admission. 2. The petitioner’s case is thus : (a) The petitioner having completed Intermediate with M.P.C. subjects in the year 2018 appeared for AP DEE CET (2018) on 17.05.2018 to get admission into two years Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.) popularly known as T.T.C. She secured 97th rank with 78 marks in the AP DEE CET (2018) conducted by 3rd respondent. (b) While so, due to her mother’s ill-health the petitioner could not attend counselling and thereby lost an opportunity to study in the Government DIET colleges. Therefore, she decided to join in 7th respondent college under the management quota. The petitioner specifically mentioned that she obtained 97th rank in AP DEE CET (2018) and due to her problems she could not go for counseling. On 03.08.2018, she submitted her certificates to 7th respondent and paid the entire fee and obtained admission No.535 with class No.55 for Academic Years 2018 to 2020 in 7th respondent college. The first year exams due in May 2019 could not be conducted due to General Elections. Subsequently due to COVID-19 pandemic the examinations were not held. In the meanwhile, the petitioner and other students completed 2 years syllabus. While so, on 27.08.2020, the 3rd respondent issued revised Time Table for the D.El.Ed. 1st year examinations of 2018-2020 batch. (c) While so, on 06.09.2020, when the petitioner went to the college of 7th respondent to collect hall ticket, she was informed that the admissions which were made under the management quota have not been accepted by the Government and so hall tickets could not be issued. Immediately, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 07.09.2020 to the official respondents informing the fraud played by the 7th respondent and requested the authorities to allow the petitioner to write examinations considering the fact that the petitioner was already qualified in the entrance examination. So far no action is taken by the respondent authorities. Immediately, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 07.09.2020 to the official respondents informing the fraud played by the 7th respondent and requested the authorities to allow the petitioner to write examinations considering the fact that the petitioner was already qualified in the entrance examination. So far no action is taken by the respondent authorities. The petitioner is eligible to admit under the management quota since she possessed all the requirements including the qualifying marks in the entrance examination. However, due to the mistake of college administration, the admissions were not regularized. The petitioner’s case is totally different from other students who were admitted under the management quota across the State. Hence, the writ petition. 3. The 2nd respondent filed counter opposing the writ petition. (a) It is pleaded that as per the norms of NCTE, out of total sanctioned seats, 80% seats are to be filled by the students who are qualified in DEE CET and remaining 20% under management/convenor quota. However, the 7th respondent college without adhering to the prescribed norms admitted the students which is per se illegal. The rule states that Convenor, DEE CET will allot students to the Government DIETs/private D.El.Ed. colleges depending upon the number of students who qualified in DEE CET. That, under the guise of relaxation given by the Government for a specific year, the 7th respondent college by misusing the opportunity given earlier, made admissions throughout the academic year resulting in stretching of the academic year every year and it affects the teaching course of the students in the private D.El.Ed. colleges. (b) The Government vide Memo No.ESE01-SEDNOCSE/411/2019-Prog.II SE (Prog-II) Department dated 11.06.2019, have issued orders clearly stating that filling up of Convenor leftover seats of Category (A) and Management leftover seats of Category (B) with or without DEE CET will not be allowed by the private managements. As the petitioner got admitted against the prescribed norms in the management quota and moreover the 7th respondent college has not submitted the details of the petitioner, she was not allowed to write examination. That if the spot admissions are being made, prior permission of the Government is compulsory, failing which said admissions will not be considered and same will be termed as invalid. That if the spot admissions are being made, prior permission of the Government is compulsory, failing which said admissions will not be considered and same will be termed as invalid. (c) It is submitted that earlier the Government have given relaxation of prescribed rules like qualifying marks and also ratification of spot admissions vide Memo No.494694/Prog.II/A1/2017 dated 22.08.2017 only for academic year 2017-18. That should not be taken as a ground by the 7th respondent and deem that every year Government will be giving relaxation against the prescribed rules and take admissions year long and submit the list just before conducting the examinations. When the Government clearly mentioned that rules were relaxed to that particular year only, the private colleges have taken the same as to their advantage and admitted students for the Academic Years 2018-19 also in violation of G.O.Ms.No.30, School Education (Prog.II) Department, dated 08.07.2015. Therefore, necessary rejection orders were issued vide proceedings in Rc.No.359/A/SCERT/2019 dated 19.09.2019. (d) It is further contended that the action of the petitioner is contrary to Rule 6 of the A.P.Elementary Teacher Training Institute/District Institutes of Education and Training (Regulation of Admissions into Diploma in Elementary Education Course to Common Entrance Test (Rules), 2015 (for short, ‘the Rules, 2015’) inasmuch as, Rule 6(1)(A)(vii) of the Rules, 2015 would say that no management of unaided college shall issue notification and call for applications for admission separately or individually for category ‘A’ seats. Further, Rule 6(1)(A)(xii) says that admission process will be closed after special counselling and leftover seats shall be considered vacant for the year. As per Rule 6(1)(A)(xiii), any admission undertaken by private unaided Non-Minority or Minority colleges to fill the vacancies after completion of special counselling on their own, deviating from the Government orders shall be treated as irregular. All such admissions will be cancelled at any time by the Government and serious note will be taken against institutions for violation. Derecognition of such private D.El.Ed. colleges shall be recommended to the NCTE. (e) It is further contended that in view of the above rule position, any spot admissions being undertaken shall be with prior permission of the Government as otherwise, their admissions will not be considered and held as invalid. Derecognition of such private D.El.Ed. colleges shall be recommended to the NCTE. (e) It is further contended that in view of the above rule position, any spot admissions being undertaken shall be with prior permission of the Government as otherwise, their admissions will not be considered and held as invalid. The 7th respondent has made spot admissions into D.El.Ed course for the year 2018-19 on their own in violation of G.O.Ms.No.30 and also in violation of the Government memo No.ESE01-SEDNOCSE/411/2019/Prog- II, School Education (Prog-II) Department dated 11.06.2019. The official respondents have not given any assurance either to the 7th respondent college or to the petitioner that they will ratify the illegal admissions. In spite of the same the admissions were made by 7th respondent. (f) Finally it is contended that earlier with the similar plea, the private D.El.Ed. colleges who have undertaken admissions against the prescribed norms filed W.P.No.10701/2020 & batch challenging the action of the Government in not ratifying the spot admissions in D.El.Ed course of Convenor quota leftover seats and also the management quota for students in elementary education course conducted by the private DED colleges for the academic year 2018-20 and not receiving the required 1st year examination fee. The said batch of the writ petitions were dismissed upholding the G.O.Ms.No.30. Hence, the present writ petition is not maintainable. 4. The 7th respondent filed counter contending as follows: (a) It is submitted that though the petitioner failed to furnish any documentary evidence showing that she appeared in DEECET (2018) and she secured 97th rank with 78 marks, the 7th respondent granted admission to the petitioner under the management quota for the reason that the petitioner herself preferred to join the 7th respondent college as she is resident of Vinukonda. It is only subsequently the 7th respondent college came to know that the petitoner appeared in DEECET and qualified. (b) It is further stated that admittedly the first year examinations for D.El.Ed course could not be held due to general elections in 2019. Subsequently, due to Covid-19 pandemic situation the said examination was not commenced. However, syllabus for the entire two years course was completed successfully by the 7th respondent college. While so, on 27.08.2020 the 3rd respondent issued revised time table for the D.El.Ed 1st year examination for the 2018-2020 batch and also for failed candidates. Subsequently, due to Covid-19 pandemic situation the said examination was not commenced. However, syllabus for the entire two years course was completed successfully by the 7th respondent college. While so, on 27.08.2020 the 3rd respondent issued revised time table for the D.El.Ed 1st year examination for the 2018-2020 batch and also for failed candidates. The official respondents refused to issue Hall Ticket to the petitioner and many like such students on the ground that admission of the students under the management quota has not been accepted for ratification by the Government for the academic year 2018-2020 and issued proceedings by alleging that the admission of the students by the colleges under the management quota was in violation of the G.O.Ms.No.30. In this regard, it is submitted that in general, the D.Ed. college management and other private D.Ed. colleges in the State were given to understand that the Government of Andhra Pradesh will permit private D.Ed Colleges to conduct spot admission with or without DEECET for their (Convenor and Management) left over seats on a case to case basis every academic year depending on the number of students that are sent by the Convenor DEECET through the DEECET exam. When the convenor DEECET was unable to send the required number of students to the private D.Ed colleges through DEECET, the Government has been issuing memos permitting the concerned officials to allow the spot admissions to be conducted by reducing the qualifying marks for the academic years. However, when the private D.Ed. colleges including the 7th respondent college made representation through association to respondent officials to consider the spot admissions for their institutions during academic year 2018-2020, the same was not done stating that as per G.O.Ms.No.30 candidates eligible for D.Ed. course should have secured a rank in DEECET. It is further submitted that over the years not only there were insufficient number of students attempting the DEECET examination, but also majority of students were not meeting the basic criteria. Added to it, students qualifying in DEECET examinations and placed in different D.Ed colleges based on their state wide ranking, were subsequently opting out of accepting the seat when they were placed in colleges outside of their home towns as they were unable to meet the hostel and boarding expenses. Added to it, students qualifying in DEECET examinations and placed in different D.Ed colleges based on their state wide ranking, were subsequently opting out of accepting the seat when they were placed in colleges outside of their home towns as they were unable to meet the hostel and boarding expenses. In such circumstances the students opt to join in the colleges, which are located within their home town by getting admission under management quota. The 7th respondent along with other batch of private D.Ed colleges has filed Writ Petitions challenging G.O.Ms.No.30 and sought for direction to ratify the spot admissions done by the managements (D.Ed colleges) and also to issue hall tickets to students admitted under management quota. The said batch of writ petitions were dismissed by this Court and aggrieved by the same the college managements have preferred an appeal and same is pending for adjudication. Thus, the 7th respondent has not played any fraud on students by admitting them under management quota. Non-issuance of hall ticket to the petitioner is purely due to reasons stated above and the college management has put in best of its efforts to ratify the spot admissions of the students. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed. 5. It should be noted that by virtue of the order dated 25.09.2020 the respondents were directed to permit the petitioner to attend D.El.Ed. 1st year examination for 2018-2020 batch, however, results shall be withheld until further orders. So also, as per order dated 22.12.2020, respondents were directed to permit the petitioner to attend D.El.Ed. 2nd year examination and withheld her results. Thus, by virtue of aforesaid orders the petitioner appeared for D.El.Ed. 1st and 2nd year examinations. 6. Heard Sri Venkata Rama Rao Kota, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for School Education representing respondent Nos.1 to 6 and Sri Chandrasen Reddy learned counsel for respondent No.7. 7. The counsels of both parties have reiterated the substance of their pleadings in their arguments. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Venkata Rama Rao Kota that the petitioner appeared for AP DEECET (2018) and secured 97th rank with 78 marks but owing to the ill-health of her mother she could not attend for counselling though she got good rank in the entrance examination. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Venkata Rama Rao Kota that the petitioner appeared for AP DEECET (2018) and secured 97th rank with 78 marks but owing to the ill-health of her mother she could not attend for counselling though she got good rank in the entrance examination. Thereafter she obtained seat under the management quota in the 7th respondent college and studied two years D.El.Ed. course. Learned counsel would argue that in view of the fact that the petitioner has passed AP DEECET (2018) with decent rank, it is not apt for official respondents to refuse to recognise her admission on the ground that the 7th respondent college has given admission to her and some others in the spot admission without taking prior permission from the official respondents. 8. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for School Education argued that the private colleges are not authorized under rules to fill-up the left over seats in convenor quota and management quota without prior permission of the respondent authorities. However, the 7th respondent has filled the seats in the spot admission in violation of G.O.Ms.No.30. In that view those admission were not recognized for D.El.Ed. 2018-2020 batch. 9. Whereas, learned counsel for 7th respondent argued that the private D.Ed colleges including the 7th respondent college made representation through association to respondent officials to consider the spot admissions for their institutions for the academic year 2018-2020 but there was no response from the respondent authorities. In those circumstances spot admission were given to the petitioner and others. 10. The point for consideration is whether there are merits in the writ petition to allow ? 11. Point: Admittedly, the petitioner appeared in AP DEECET (2018) and secured 97th rank with 78 marks. However, she did not attend counselling owing to her personal reasons. Subsequently, she secured seta in the spot admission conducted by the 7th respondent and studied two years (2018-2020) D.El.Ed. course. Now the issue is that before conducting spot admission for the management quota the 7th respondent did not take permission of the respondent authorities. 12. As can be seen, the Government have issued Andhra Pradesh Elementary Teacher Training Institutions/District Institutes of Education and Training (Regulation of Admissions into Diploma in Elementary Education Course through Common Entrance Test) Rules, 2015 and notified under G.O.Ms.No.30 School Education (Prog.II) Department, dt : 08.07.2015. 12. As can be seen, the Government have issued Andhra Pradesh Elementary Teacher Training Institutions/District Institutes of Education and Training (Regulation of Admissions into Diploma in Elementary Education Course through Common Entrance Test) Rules, 2015 and notified under G.O.Ms.No.30 School Education (Prog.II) Department, dt : 08.07.2015. (a) As per Rule 2(i) (v) and (w), seats are divided into two categories i.e., category ‘A’ and category ‘B’. Category ‘A’ means 80% of the sanctioned intake of the seats in Private Elementary Teacher Training Institutions to be filled up by the convenor DEECET or DEECET AC from the DEECET rank holders in the order of merit as per eligibility conditions mentioned in Rule 4. Whereas category ‘B’ seats means 20% of the sanctioned intake of the seats in Private Elementary Teacher Training Institutions to be filled by the managements of the respective colleges as per the eligibility conditions mentioned in Rule 4 and subject to approval by the competent authority. (b) Rule (6)(A)(vii) says that no management of unaided college shall issue notification and call for application for admission separately or individually for category ‘A’ seats. (c) Then, Rule-4 prescribes the eligibility criteria for admission. Rule 4 (ii) says that candidate should have secured a rank in the DEECET conducted for the academic year concerned for admission into Government DIETs and Private Elementary Teacher Training Institutions and should satisfy the educational criteria prescribed for the course. It further says that for obtaining a DEECET rank candidate belonging to “OC” and “BC” communities shall secure minimum 50% marks in DEECET. For Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Physically challenged candidates the minimum qualifying marks will be 45%. 13. When the above relevant rules are applied to the petitioner’s case, she appeared in the AP DEECET (2018) and secured 97th rank with 78 marks. So there is no demur that she satisfies the eligibility criteria in passing DEECET entrance exam with more than 50% marks. However, to get seat in the convenor quota, she did not appear for counselling. At the same time she secured seat in the 20% management quota. However, the 7th respondent college did not obtain approval from the competent authority for conducting spot admissions and to fill the 20% management quota. It is the case of 7th respondent that the representation was made to accord permission to official respondents but respondent authorities did not respond. At the same time she secured seat in the 20% management quota. However, the 7th respondent college did not obtain approval from the competent authority for conducting spot admissions and to fill the 20% management quota. It is the case of 7th respondent that the representation was made to accord permission to official respondents but respondent authorities did not respond. It is true that by non-obtaining prior approval from the competent authority the 7th respondent committed a blunder. Whatever be the reason, the ultimate sufferer is the writ petitioner. 14. In the above context, I perused the order dated 24.07.2020 in W.P.No.10701 of 2020 and batch passed by learned single Judge of this Court. In that case aggrieved by the action of the respondent authorities in not ratifying the spot admissions in D.El.Ed. Course of Convener quota left over seats and management quota left over seats conducted by the petitioner colleges for the academic year 2018-2020 and not receiving the required 1st year examination fee online, the aforesaid batch of writ petitions came to be filed seeking to declare the action of the respondent authorities as illegal, and for consequential direction to respondent authorities. In that case, it appears, the educational institutions during the spot admissions conducted by them gave admissions to students who have either not appeared in the DEECET or appeared but did not get minimum 50% marks. Such exercise was done with the hope that the Government would be benevolent and relax the conditions and ratify the spot admissions. However, the Government relying upon the G.O.Ms.No.30, refused to ratify the admission made by the private colleges. This Court has agreed with the contention of the respondents and observed that G.O.Ms.No.30 has done nothing more than selecting the marks obtained in the entrance examination as the criteria for the admission and therefore such prescription is not in conflict with the admission procedure prescribed by NCTE and ultimately dismissed the writ petitions. Therefore, the colleges are not supposed to conduct spot admissions and give admissions to students who have either not appeared in DEECET entrance examination or appeared but did not secure minimum qualifying marks of 50% without prior permission. There is no demure about the ratio in the above ruling. Coming to the case on hand, it slightly varies. In this case the petitioner admittedly appeared for AP DEECET (2018) and obtained 97th rank with 78 marks. There is no demure about the ratio in the above ruling. Coming to the case on hand, it slightly varies. In this case the petitioner admittedly appeared for AP DEECET (2018) and obtained 97th rank with 78 marks. To that extent she is eligible. As stated supra, the only blunder committed by the 7th respondent is that it did not obtain prior approval from the competent authority before filling 20% seats in the spot admissions. 15. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and also that by virtue of Court orders, the petitioner was permitted to write examinations for the two years, in my considered view, ends of justice will be met if the respondent authorities are directed to declare the results of the petitioner. It does not mean that this Court approves action of the 7th respondent. However, the Court only considers the case of the petitioner in a sympathetic manner. 16. Accordingly, for the reasons stated supra, the respondent authorities are directed to declare the results of 1st and 2nd year examinations relating to D.El.Ed. 2018-2020 of the petitioner within four (4) weeks from the date receipt of a copy of this order. However, this order cannot be taken as a precedent in future cases. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending for consideration shall stand closed.