Telangana High Court Raps TSLAWCET, PGLCET Convenor For Adopting Illegal Method Of Seat Allotment, Depriving Eligible Students From Getting Seats

The Telangana High Court has exposed serious irregularities in the admission process for law colleges conducted by the Convenor of TSLAWCET and PGLCET. The court, while addressing three writ petitions (W.P. Nos. 43521, 40827, and 43048 of 2022), uncovered an illegal method of seat allotment that deprived deserving candidates of opportunities in their preferred law colleges.

While the court directed for seats to be kept vacant for students who were deprived of admissions, it refused to set aside the entire process.

The order was passed by Justice K Lakshman who noted “ The action of the Convener and the method adopted in allotment of seats is illegal and has an effect of depriving eligible students from getting seats under the 15% unreserved This would have interfered to set aside the entire allotment process. However, as the counselling is completed and classes have begun, this Court has to balance competing equities of students who were already allotted seats and the students who have been deprived a seat. Admissions are completed and the clock cannot be set back.”

Such practice, the Court noted, not only violated the Andhra Pradesh Law Courses (Regulation of Admissions into 3-year and 5-year LLB/B.L. courses through Common Entrance Test) Rules, 2006 but also contradicted the spirit of the reservation policy.

“This Court has perused the said allotment list and has found that the allotments happened contrary to Rules, 2006 and the mandate of Presidential Order, 1974. xxviii)As stated above, local candidates are eligible for a seat both under 85% category and 15% unreserved seat category. However, a candidate who has a better rank and who is eligible to obtain a seat as a local candidate the 85% quota in his/her preferred college, cannot be allotted a seat under 15% unreserved seat quota in the same preferred college. Doing so will reduce the chances of other are ineligible to claim a seat as a local candidate," it was held.

Background:

The case revolved around the admission process for the three-year undergraduate law course, where three aspiring law students challenged the seat allotment procedure. The primary contention was the misapplication of reservation policies, particularly concerning the 85% seats reserved for local candidates and the 15% unreserved seats.

In all three cases, despite the aspirants being permanent residents of the State, they were either not permitted to select their preferred college, or were allotted a seat in the 15% (which included students from TS & AP) quota of their desired college, substantially decreasing their chance of getting a seat. They contended that they should have been allotted seat in the 85% quota reserved for the locals of the State.

On previous occasions, the Court had directed the Colleges to leave one vacant seat for two petitioners and had permitted the third petitioner to select the college of his choice.

Upon careful examination, the court found that the Convenor had adopted an illegal approach in allotting seats. The judgment revealed that candidates who were eligible for admission under the 85% local quota were wrongly given seats in the 15% unreserved category. It said:

“According to this Court, the Convener should first allot colleges filling up the 85% quota of local candidates which includes the reserved seats. After filling up these 85% seats reserved for local candidates, the Convener shall then fill up the remaining 15% by considering merit among the local candidates and other In the present case, the allotment of seats was contrary to the Rules, 2006”

The court highlighted a glaring example from Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Law College, where out of 22 unreserved seats, 19 were filled by local candidates who could have secured admission under the 85% local quota. This approach severely limited the chances of other eligible candidates, including those from outside the local area, to secure seats in their desired colleges.

In its ruling, the court emphasized that the 15% unreserved seats are meant to be filled based on merit and competition among all eligible candidates, without giving undue preference to local candidates who are already covered under the 85% quota. The judgment also pointed out that this practice was in direct violation of a Supreme Court decision in NTR University of Health Sciences v. G. Babu Rajendra Prasad (2003) which clearly stated that social reservations applicable to the 85% quota should not be extended to the 15% unreserved seats.

While the court refrained from cancelling the admissions already made, considering the advanced stage of the academic year, it did provide relief to some of the petitioners by directing the allotment of seats that were kept vacant as per earlier interim orders. More importantly, the judgment serves as a stern warning to the Convenor and other authorities involved in the admission process.

Thus, the petitions were disposed of.

Case number: WP 43521 of 2022 & Batch

Case title: Babu Benhur.R vs, State of TS.

Counsels for petitioners: J.C. Francis, Dharmesh D.K. Jaiswal,

Counsel for respondents: Government Pleader for Higher Education, C. Vani Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Council for Higher Education (TSCHE) Ch. Jagannatha Rao, standing counsel for Osmania University.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 119

Click Here To Read/Download Order