PALLAPU SREENIVASA RAO Vs. REGISTRAR UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES ANDHRA PRADESH VIJAYAWADA
LAWS(APH)-1992-7-39
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on July 23,1992

PALLAPU SREENIVASA RAO Appellant
VERSUS
REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, ANDHRA PRADESH VIJAYAWADA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SONU BALHARA V. MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY,ROHTAK [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TAMILNADU V. ST. JOSEPH TEACHERS TRAINING INSTITUTE [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY V. THUKRAL ANJALI DEOKUMAR [REFERRED TO]
VINAY RAMPAL VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. BHAGWANT SINGH [REFERRED TO]
DINESH KUMAR VS. MOTILAL NEHRU MEDICAL COLLEGE ALLAHABAD [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA [REFERRED TO]
SUBODH NAUTIYAL VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. ST JOSEPH TEACHERS TRAINING INSTITUTE:DR ARUPAPPA TEACHERS TRAINING INSTITUTE [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. ANUPAM GUPTA [REFERRED TO]
SIDA NITINKUMAR LAXMANBHAI DR VS. GUJARAT UNIVERSITY [REFERRED TO]
PADMAJA VS. UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)A candidate who sought admission to M.B.B.S. course in the year 1991 is the appellant. His attempts to get admission having failed, he filed Writ Petition No. 13612/91. A learned single Judge of this Court by his judgment dt. 14-2-1992 dismissed the Writ Petition. Hence this appeal,
(2.)The appellant who was Writ Petitioner and who will hereinafter referred to a the petitioner belongs to Backward Class Community, Group-A. He belongs to Kurnool District which comes within the local area of Sri Venkateswara University. He applied in the common application form prescribed under the EAMCET Rules indicating that he need be considered for admission in any one of the following six Colleges viz., (1) Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool, (2) S.V. Medical College, Tirupathi; (3) Guntur Medical College, Guntur, (4) Andhra Madical College, Visakhapatnam, (5) Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad, and (6) Gandhi Medical College, Hyderabad. He left out Siddartha Medical College, Vijayawada and Government Dental College & Hospital, Hyderabad. Petitioner was ranked as No. 2161 in the EAMCET Examination. According to him he should have been admitted in any one of the colleges which he has specified because persons with lesser marks belonging to B.C. (A) category had been admitted in those colleges. It is the case of the petitioner that he should have been admitted in either of the two Colleges in S.V. University area, by reason of the provisions contained in Rule 8(G) of the EAMCET Rules in 85% of the seats which were available for local candidates. He submits in the alternative that he ought to have been admitted at least in such quota in respect of non-state-wide Educational Institutions specified in Annexure-III of G.O.P. NO. 646, Education dt. 10-7-1979 and under Rule 8(C) of G.O. Ms. No. 1793 dt. 23-9-70. He submits further that he ought to have been admitted at least in 15% quota available to non-locals in Siddartha Medical College, in view of the fact that persons with lesser rank than he belonging to B.C.--A group were admitted in the non-local quota in that college. Petitioner submits that Rule 11 of the EAMCET rules which provides that candidates "will not be considered for the colleges not opted for in the application" as arbitrary and discriminatory and it has been so held by this Court in G. Padmaja v. University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, 1990 (1) ALT 375. Petitioner submits that there are adequate number of seats to provide for him even in Kurnool Medical College and there will not be any problem in directing his admission to one such existing vacancy. He submits that after the results are published on 23-9-91, he had filed an application before the convenor of the EAMCET Committee for review of his case for admission. It is on these allegations that the petitioner sought the issue of a declaration that the allotment of Reserved quota seats to B.C. (A) category to MBBS course for admission for first year course in the colleges in the State of A.P. without allotting a seat to the petitioner is irregular. He seeks a consequential direction to allot him a seat.
(3.)In the counter-affidavit the respondent denied these allegations. He submitted that petitioner had specified six colleges in his application and in terms of the EAMCET Rules, he should not have been considered for admission to any other college. Respondent asserted that the candidates were put on notice of the conditions contained in Rule 11(1) as also the note in item-16, that the candidates would not be considered for any college not mentioned in the application form. Respondent had asserted further that the last candidate belonging to B.C. (A) category admitted in the college in the S.V. University area held rank No. 2091 and candidate in Nagarjuna University area belonging to B.C. (A) category held rank No. 2139 whereas the last such candidate in Osmania and Gandhi Medical colleges had secured rank No. 511. Petitioner secured the rank 2161. Obviously therefore, he could not be admitted as a candidate belonging to B.C.(A) category in any one of the six colleges which he had specified in the application. Petitioner not having applied for admission to Siddartha Medical College, Vijayawada or the Government Dental College and Hospital, Hyderabad was not considered for admission to those colleges. Respondent admitted that non-local candidates belonging to B.C.(A) group with lesser rank than the petitioner had been admitted in Siddartha Medical College, Vijayawada. It is asserted that the petitioner, not having applied for admission to that college, cannot now complain of admission of another student. It is further submitted that the petitioner not having impleaded that student as a party, is not entitled to assail that admission. It is submitted lastly that the course commenced long back and the petitioner cannot now seek admission during the middle of the term. Respondent stoutly denied the existence of a vacancy in which petitioner can be admitted now. On the other hand, counsel submitted that the results of the EAMCET examination 92 have already been published and the admissions are likely to commence soon.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.