Allowed

Detla Srujan Bhupathi Varma v. The Joint Secretary

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Mar 2022WP/6722/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a college's refusal to return original certificates. The petitioner had secured both National and State quotas seats but needed the documents for the latter. The court held the retention arbitrary and illegal, ordering the release of certificates. Const. Article 14 breached.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondent Nos.4 and 5 to release original certificates to enable the petitioner to join Respondent No.6-College for M.B.B.S.

Detla Srujan Bhupathi Varma Vs The Joint… — Education and Admissions | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.6722 OF 2022

¶4

ORDER: ( Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.V.Sesha Sai )

¶5

Heard Sri Jada Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G.Vijaya Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for Dr.N.T.R.University of Health Sciences/respondent No.4 and learned Government Pleader for Medical and Health appearing for respondent No.3.

¶6

In the present Writ Petition, challenge is to the action of respondent No.5-College in refusing to release the original certificates of the petitioner so as to enable him to join in respondent No.6-college in M.B.B.S.Course. The petitioner herein appeared for NEET Examination, 2021, and secured All India Rank of 5,55,401 and according to the petitioner, he belongs to the quota of disabled persons under the category of ‘Hearing Impaired’. In the first round of counselling conducted for All India quota on 09.02.2022, the respondents herein allotted a seat to the petitioner in the respondent No.5-college on the even date. In the said allotment letter, against the column, ‘Willingness Details’, the petitioner herein categorically stated that he wanted to participate in the next round of counselling. According to the petitioner, after the said allotment of seat in respondent No.5-College on 09.02.2022, the petitioner herein

¶7

¶8

paid the entire fee and submitted the original certificates in respondent No.5-college. Subsequently, in respect of the State quota, first round of counselling took place on 10.03.2022, wherein the petitioner herein secured a seat in the 6^th respondent-College. According to the petitioner, when he made a request to respondent No.5 to return the original academic qualification certificates and the fee paid, respondent No.5College refused to consider the said request. In the above background, the petitioner herein has come up before this Court with the present Writ Petition, seeking the relief as mentioned supra.

¶9

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, having permitted the petitioner herein to participate in the first round of counselling under State Quota and having allotted a seat in respondent No.6-College on 10.03.2022, there is absolutely no justification on the part of respondent No.5-College in declining to return the original certificates and the fee paid by the petitioner. In support of his submissions and the contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of the Telangana High Court in the case of D.Vaishnavi v. State of Telangana in Writ Petition No.21137 of 2019 dated 24.01.2020.

¶10

On the other hand, strenuously resisting the Writ Petition, it is contended by the learned Standing Counsel for

¶11

¶12

Dr.N.T.R.University for Health Sciences, Sri G.Vijay Kumar, that once the petitioner herein got selected in the first round of counselling and joined the course in respondent No.5-College, the petitioner herein is not entitled for the relief sought in the Writ Petition. It is further submitted that unless the petitioner quits the seat in respondent No.5-College, he is not entitled for a seat in respondent No.6-College. While referring to a notice of the Directorate General of Health Services dated 05.02.2022, it is further contended by the learned Standing Counsel that the petitioner herein should have resigned from the seat in respondent No.5-College by 15.02.2022 and without doing so, the petitioner herein is not entitled to any relief in the present Writ Petition.

¶13

The material available on record manifestly discloses that after getting qualified in the NEET Examination conducted for M.B.B.S. Course, petitioner appeared for the first round of counselling for the seats earmarked under National Quota and the respondents herein allotted a seat in M.B.B.S.Course in respondent No.5-College on 09.02.2022. It is absolutely not in controversy that thereafter the first round of counselling for the seats earmarked for State Quota took place on 10.03.2022 and in the said counselling, the petitioner herein secured a seat in respondent No.6-College. It is also not in controversy that in the initial allotment letter dated 09.02.2022 as against the column

¶14

¶15

‘Willingness Details’, the petitioner herein categorically made it clear that he wanted to participate in the next round of counselling also. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner herein should have resigned from the first seat by 15.02.2022, in the considered opinion of this Court, does not stand for either reasonableness or rationality as the first round of counselling under the State Quota admittedly took place on 10.03.2022. In the above background, the insistence on resigning from the first seat even prior to the allotment of seat in the first round of counselling under the State Quota appears to be impracticable.

¶16

In this context, it may be appropriate to refer to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Telangana High Court in the case of D.Vaishnavi v. State of Telangana in Writ Petition No.21137 of 2019 dated 24.01.2020. In the said case, the petitioner herein submitted his academic qualification original certificates to respondent No.3-College therein and subsequently she attended for certificate verification and the counselling conducted by Dr.N.T.R.University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, in the State of Andhra Pradesh for seats reserved for non-locals and pursuant to the directions of this Court, for consideration of her candidature against the left-over vacancies, she got admission into a Government Medical College under the Convener Quota under ‘Open Category’ in the final phase of

¶17

¶18

counselling. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the Telangana High Court allowed the Writ Petition and declared the action of respondent No.3-College therein in not returning the original academic qualification certificates of the petitioners therein as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the instant case, the petitioner herein also stands on the same footing. This Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned action of respondent No.5-College in declining to return the original academic qualification certificates submitted by the petitioner on 09.02.2022 at the time of admission into the first year M.B.B.S. Couse is highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

¶19

For the aforesaid reasons, this Writ Petition is allowed, directing respondent Nos.4 and 5 to release the original certificates submitted by the petitioner so as to enable the petitioner to join in respondent No.6-College in M.B.B.S. Course for the academic year 2021-22 as per the allotment letter. There shall be no order as to costs of the Writ Petition.

¶20

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶21

___________________ A.V.SESHA SAI, J

¶22

___________________________ RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J

¶23

Date: 16.03.2022

¶24

¶25

Note: Issue cc today B/O siva

¶26

¶27

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶28

WRIT PETITION No.6722 OF 2022

¶29

Date: 16.03.2022

¶30

siva

Detla Srujan Bhupathi Varma v. The Joint Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Detla Srujan Bhupathi Varma v. The Joint Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nalukurthi Prasad Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Siddiqui Aided Schools Committee, Kurnool Dist Vs Adityanadh Das, Amaravati and 2 Others

M/S Garudadri Dall Mill Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs B Chinnagokaramma

Dr KhadeerAhamadShaik Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dr Zabiullah MD Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh