Writ petitions challenging refusal to ratify student admissions in D.EI.Ed. B-Category quota dismissed. Court held admissions invalid due to missed deadlines and lack of required rank disclosure.
Refusal to ratify admissions under B-Category quota was upholds; writ petitions dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.7163, 3607, 5720, 5726 and 5771 of 2017
COMMON ORDER:
These writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order as the relief sought therein is one and the same.
These writ petitions are filed challenging the action of the Convener, DEE CET-2015, Saifabad, Hyderabad, Telangana State in refusing ratification of the admissions of the petitioners, who were admitted in B-Category quota in respondent-colleges for the academic year 2015-16 vide proceedings, dated 16.09.2016.
The petitioners claim that they are the students of respondentcolleges and after declaration of the results of DEE CET-2015, the Convener conducted counselling for A-Category seats in different phases and also allowed spot admissions under A-Category seats. The Colleges are entitled to fill up 20% of the seats under B-Category and accordingly, the seats were filled up before 22.04.2016. Classes were started from 01.03.2016 and the colleges were on summer vacation from 23.04.2016 to 13.06.2016. It is the case of the petitioners that the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed an order on 13.05.2016 in SLP No.8875 of 2016 permitting some of the Minority Colleges to fill up A-Category seats even after the period of counselling and therefore, those Minority Colleges have started admitting the students under A-Category. In view of the said order and in view of the admission of students by the colleges under
2
A-Category, some of the B-Category candidates opted for A-Category and B-Category seats remained unfilled. Therefore, the students, who have not appeared in DEE CET-2015, were admitted under B-Category seats of the colleges. The last date for uploading the details of admissions under B-Category was 22.04.2016, but the Colleges could not upload the information. However, after completion of admissions under B-Category, the colleges approached the Convener, who in turn, did not allow the submission of hard copies after the last date. As per G.O.Ms.No.63, dated 28.10.2013, the students, who were admitted into D.Ed. Course, shall possess 80% attendance in order to appear in the final examinations and the petitioners claim that they have fulfilled such condition. Since they were not allowed to upload the details of the petitioners through online, the Colleges submitted representations to the Convener requesting him to ratify the admissions under B-Category, but the said request was not acceded to. Therefore, the present writ petitions are filed.
Respondent No.2 filed a counter-affidavit stating that the intake of D.EI.Ed. Colleges is 50 students. Out of 50 seats, 80% of admissions will be made through the Convener, S.W-1 DEE CET2015 and 20% through the Management concerned. G.O.Ms.Nos.63 and 22 dated 28.10.2013 and 29.05.2014 respectively, prescribe the criteria for filling up of B-Category seats. The Convener issued instructions to all the Correspondents of private D.El.Ed. Colleges by proceedings, dated 02.03.2016 to complete the admissions under B-Category seats by 14.03.2016 and submit the list of candidates by
3
15.03.2016, and the date was extended up to 22.04.2016 as per the request made by the management. The colleges did not submit the names of the petitioners for approval by 22.04.2016. Therefore, it cannot be said that the admission of the petitioners was valid, as such, ratification of such admission does not arise. The petitioners were not parties before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in order to get the benefit of the order passed by it. Even otherwise also, the said order would enable the Colleges to make admissions under A-Category seats.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, the point that arises for consideration in these writ petitions is whether the admissions of the petitioners are properly made and was in accordance with G.O.Ms.Nos.63 and 22, dated 28.10.2013 and 29.05.2014 respectively.
As per the above stated Government Orders, the criteria for filling up of B-Category seats are as follows:
4
The schedule for admission of the candidates filled under B-Category was also communicated to all the colleges on 02.04.2016 and it is as follows:
| Name of the District | Date of submission |
|---|---|
| Mahaboobnagar, Ranga Reddy | 23.04.2016 |
| Adilabad, Karimnagar, Hyderabad, Medak, Nizamabad |
25.04.2016 |
| Warangal, Khammam | 26.04.2016 |
| Nalgonda | 27.04.2016 |
Admittedly, none of the petitioners underwent the common admission test and the ranks obtained by them are not disclosed in the affidavits filed by them. Even otherwise also, since the required information was not furnished to the Convener within the prescribed time, it cannot be said that the petitioners fulfilled the required attendance of 80%. Thus, on both grounds, the proceedings issued by the Convener have to be upheld. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petitions.
The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_______________________ A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO,J
Dt:10.04.2017 kdl
5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether admissions of petitioners in B-Category were properly made in accordance with Government Orders.
Whether failure to upload details within time limits and lack of required test rank negates validity of admissions.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioners
Convener, DEE CET-2015
Management of Respondent-Colleges
A. Ramalingeswara Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
