Disposed

Tadi Lakshmi Sri Nithya, v. The Union of India

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Feb 2024WP/24036/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court noticed an error in the petitioner's NCC priority classification for medical admissions. Finding the petitioner had already been admitted and was in the IV year, the court disposed of the writ petition by directing respondents to permit the petitioner to complete the course and issue the degree upon successful completion.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to permit the petitioner to complete the MBBS course and issue the requisite degree if completed successfully.

Tadi Lakshmi Sri Nithya, Vs The Union of India — Education and Admissions | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

HONOURABLE THE CHiEF JUSTiCE DHiRAJ SiNGH THAKUR AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRi JUSTiCE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶8

WRiT PETiTiON NO: 24036 OF 2020

¶9

Between:

¶10

Tadi Lakshmi Sri Nithya, D/o. T.G. Subba Rao, Aged about 18 years, Rep. by her natural Guardian and Mother Karneedi Sri Annapurna, W/o. T.G. Subba Rao, Aged 48 years, R/o. H. No. 5-5-12/2, Ibrahim Street, Surya Rao Peta, Kakinada, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh - 533,001

¶11

...PETITiONER

¶12

AND

¶13

The Union of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Nirman Bhavan New Delhi -110 108 Rep. by its Director General of^{HealthServices}

¶14

The Director General of NCC (DG of NCC), National Cadet Corps Directorate, R.K. Puram-IV, New Delhi -110 066, Rep. by its Director General

¶15

National Cadet Corps (NCC) Headquarter, AP. and T.S. General Chaudhary Road, Secunderabad, Telangana, Rep. by its Deputy Director General.

¶16

Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Andhra Pradesh. Vijayawada - 8, Rep. by its Registrar

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order, direction or Writ more particularly^{oneinthenature} of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ (i) declare that placing the Petitioner in NCC Priority III (c) plus (B) instead of NCC Priority II (d) plus (B) for admission into MBBS courses 2020-21 offered by the Respondent University is illegal, arbitrary and unjust (ii) declare that the Petitioner is entitled to NCC Priority II (d) plus (B) for admission into MBBS/BDS courses for the academic year 2020-21, (iii) consequently direct the Respondents to consider the claim of the Petitioner as NCC Priority II (d) plus (B) and admission into MBBS course under competent authority quota/Private Management quota for the academic year 2020-21 in the Respondent University, and (iv) direct the Respondents to place the Petitioner between SI.Nos.4 and 5 in the provisional NCC Priority List for the academic year 2020-21.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent University to allot MBBS seat by considering the Petitioner under NCC Priority II (d) + (B) for the purpose of admission into

¶21

I /

¶22

MBBS course for the academic year 2020-21 under the competent authority quota seats/Private Management Quota seats.

¶23

lA NO: 2 OF 2020

¶24

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstatedinthe} affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High^{CourtmaybepleasedTo} advance the date of hearing of the writ petition No.^{24036/2020form28.12} 2020totodayi.e., 21.12.2020.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.UDAYA SRI

¶26

Counsel for the Respondents Nos.1 to 3: G SAI NARAYANA^RAO

¶27

SC FOR CENTRAL GOVT

¶28

Counsel for the Respondents No.4: Mr. G. VIJAYA KUMAR,

¶29

STANDING COUNSEL

¶30

The Court made the following: ORDER

i- li I I

i- i

[3446 ]

m THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶35

MONDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OP FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY POUR

¶36

PRESENT

¶37

HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR

¶38

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶39

WRIT PETITION NO: 24036 OF 2080

¶40

Between:

¶41

Tadi Laksluni Sri Nithya,, D/o. T.G. Subba Rao,^Agedabout18 years, Rep. by her natural Guardian and Mother Karneedi^Sri Annapurna, W/o. T.G. Subba Rao, Aged 48 years, R/o.^H.No.5- 5-12/2, Ibrahim Street, Surya Rao Peta, Kakinada, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh - 533 001

¶42

...PETITIONER(S)

¶43

AND

¶44

The Union of India, Ministry of Health and Family^Welfare, Nirrnan Bhavan, New Delhi -110 108 Rep. by its Director General of Health Services

¶45

The Director General of NCC DG of NCC, National Cadet Corps Directorate, R.K. Puram-IV, New Delhi -110 066, Rep.^byits Director General

¶46

National Cadet Corps NCC, Headquarter, A.P. and^T.S.General Ghaudhary Road, Secimderabad, Telangana, Rep. by its Deputy Director General.

¶47

Dr NTR University of Health Sciences, Andhra Pradesh,. Vijayawada - 8, Rep. by its Registrar

¶48

...RESPONDENTS

¶49

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of^India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit^filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an^order, direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature^ofWritof Mandamus or any other appropriate writ (i) declare^thatplacing the Petitioner in NCC Priority III (c) plus (B) instead^ofNCC

¶50

i; £

¶51

HCJ & RRR, J WP 24036 2020

¶52

I ry

¶53

¶54

Priority II (d) plus (B) for admission into MBBS courses^2020-21 offered by the Respondent University is illegal, arbitrary^and unjust (ii) declare that, the Petitioner-is entitled to WOO Priority II (d) plus (B) for admission into MBBS/BDS courses for the academic year 2020-21, (hi) consequently direct the Respondents to consider the claim of the Petitioner^as UGC Priority II (d) plus (B) and admission into MBBS^courseunder competent authority quota/Private Management quota for the academic year 2020-21 in the Respondent University, and (iv) direct the Respondents to place the Petitioner between^SI.Nos.4 and 5 in the provisional NOG Priority List for the academic year 2020-21 and pass '■

¶55

lANO: 1 OP 2020

¶56

Petition under Section 151 GPG praying that in the circumstances, stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Gourt may be pleased to direct the Respondent University to allot MBBS seat by considering the Petitioner under NGG Priority II (d) + (B) for the purpose of^{admissioninto} MBBS course for the academic year 2020-21 under the competent authority quota seats/Private Management Quota seats and pass

¶57

m NO: 2 OP 2020

¶58

Petition under Section 151 GPG praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Gourt may be pleased To advance^thedateof hearing of the writ petition No. 24036/2020 form 28.12^2020to today i.e., 21.12.2020 and to pass.

¶59

Counsel for the Petitioner(s):Smt K. UDAYA SRI

¶60

Counsel for Respondent Nos.l to 3: G SAINARAYANA RAO,

¶61

SC POR CENTRAL. GOVT.

¶62

Counsel for Respondent No.4: Mr. G. VIJAYA KUMAR, Standing Counsel.

¶63

The Court made the following:

¶64

By virtue of interim order, dated 22.12.2020, this^Courthad

¶65

noticed that there was some error in fixing the priority^ofthe

¶66

¶67

?•

¶68

HCJ'&KRR, J WP 24036 2020

¶69

petitioner in the list for the academic year 2020-2021 for admission to an MBBS Course. It is in that context that this Court had directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in priority 11(d) + (B) for admission into the medical course for the academic year 2020-2021.

¶70

It appears that the case of the petitioner was then considered and admission granted. The fact that the respondents have not filed their counter-affidavit reflects that they have no objection to the continuance of the petitioner in the said course.

¶71

We are told that the petitioner is already in the IV year in the MBBS course.

¶72

Be that as it may, we dispose of this Writ Petition with directions to the respondents to permit the petitioner to complete the course and to issue the requisite degrees if the course is completed successfully. No orders as to costs.

¶73

¶74

Miscellaneous apphcations pending, if any, shall stand^closed. SDVr V.SAVITHRI GOWRI ASSISTAMTl REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶75

To,

¶76

The Director General of Health Services Union of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi -110 108.

¶77

The Director General, Director General of NCC (DG of NCC), National Cadet Corps Directorate, R.K. Puram-IV, New Delhi -110 066, Rep. by its

¶78

The Deputy Director General National Cadet Corps (NCC)., Headquarter, A.P. and T.S. General Chaudhary Road, Secunderabad, Telangana,.

[7-

i t I i: I I'

§ r f

Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada - 8, Rep. by its Registrar

¶83

One CC to SRI K.UDAYA SRI Advocate, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh [OPUC]

¶84

One CC to SRI G SAI NARAYANA RAO SC FOR CENTRAL GOVT. High Court Of Andhra Pradesh [OPUC]

¶85

One CC to SRI G. VIJAY KUMAR STANDING COUNSEL, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh [OPUC]

¶86

Two CD Copies MBT

HIGH COURT

DATED:12/02/2024

ORDER

WP.No.24036 of 2020

a:o 2 6 JUL 202^
S^i
CurreiTt Section

¶92

DISPOSING THE W.P

¶93

WITHOUT COSTS

Tadi Lakshmi Sri Nithya, v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tadi Lakshmi Sri Nithya, v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bode Ramachandra Vs the State of Ap

Inakanti Yugandhar, Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Inakanti Yugandhar Vs the State of Ap

K.S.N.V. Kameswara Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vanapalli Narayana Rao Vs Reserve Bank of India

Akhila Bharatha Veera Shaiva Dharmika Agama Parishat Vs State of Andhra Pradesh