- (1.) The controversy raised in the Writ Petition and the Writ appeal revolves around the transfer of a candidate after admission to the Post- graduate Course in Medical College.
(2.) For the session 1994-95, the 1st respondent, who belonged to the open merit category, applied for admission to the course in M. D. Pathology. He was granted that admission in Kumool Medical College but since he did not want to stay there, he declined the seat and instead, was accommodated by admission to Post-Graduate diploma in Clinical Pathology at Sri venkateswara Medical College, Tirupati. The 2nd respondent, a Scheduled Caste candidate, had also applied for admission to Post-Graduate medical course and was admitted in M. D. Pathology against the reserved quota. She joined the said course in Sri Venkateswara Medical College, tirupati. She later on requested for a change of college from Tirupati to osmania Medical College, Hyderabad, stating that there was a vacancy for the same subject available in the Osmania medical College, Hyderabad. The government granted her request on 15-3-1996 and she consequently joined the Osmania medical College, Hyderabad on 22-3- 1996. The 1st respondent thereupon made a request on 18-4-1996 to be accommodated against the seat vacated by the 2nd respondent in Tirupati. That request was turned down. The 1st respondent thereupon filed a writ petition in the High Court putting in issue the rejection for the allotment of seat to him against the vacancy caused by the transfer of 2nd respondent from the Tirupati College. The writ petition was dismissed on 18-7-1996. The 1st respondent thereupon preferred a writ appeal before a Division Bench of the High court. During the pendency of the appeal before the Division Bench, it transpired that the order of transfer of the 2nd respondent from Tirupati College to the Osmania medical College, Hyderabad had been subsequently cancelled and the 2nd respondent had since gone back to occupy the seat earlier vacated by her in Tirupati Medical college.
(3.) Since the seat in Tirupati College was no longer available, respondent No. 1 could not be granted admission against that seat. It was alleged before the Division bench that the application of the 1st respondent as well as the impleaded respondent (respondent No. 2) had not been considered properly and he sought appropriate adjustment. It was found that under the rules and Regulations, the Registrar of the university had been given the power to permit transfer of a student from one college to another with the limitation that the power could be exercised by him only within a period of six months from the date of admission. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court directed consideration of the application of both the respondents by the Registrar of the appellant University by relaxing the limitation of time. In the words of the High court : "It is a fit case, in our opinion, for a direction to the Registrar concerned to entertain the application, if any, by Dr. J. Anunayi (impleaded respondent) and if he is satisfied, to pass orders for transferring him from one institution to another institution for which purpose the period of limitation is relaxed and to consider the application, if any, of the writ petitioner-appellant for admission against the seat which is vacated by the order, if passed in favour of the impleaded respondent. ";