Writ petition sought ratification of convener-quota admissions in POLYCET 2016-17 by an engineering college. The Government Pleader submitted the cause no longer survived as admissions pertained to academic year 2016-17; the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous with no order on costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
ivA# i
V
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION NO: 39313 OF 2016
Between:
Correspondent Kolli Ravi Kumar S/o. Kolli Raghavendra Rao, Aged
about 48 years, Chirala Engineering Campus, Ramapuram Beach Road, Chirala, Vetapalem Mandal, Prakasam District.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
Hyderabad.
...RESPONDENTS
<{-
Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of india praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may t be^ pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order Qlj direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in refusing to T^J^the list of students admitted to the petitioners institution under cdftvener quota 2nd shift POLYCET-2016 -17 admission in the academic year 2016-17, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the provisions of the Presidential order 1974 and further direct the respondents to consider all the admission made by the petitioners in left over seats under convener quota, 2nd shift POLYCET 2016-17 admission. as valid and prove the admissions made by the petitioners.
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016fWPMP. NO; 48455 OF 201 fi)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed i m support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents herein to ratify the list of students admitted by the petitioners herein and to treat the same as valid for all purposes including allowing the students to appear for the examinations, pending disposal of the main writ petition in the interest of justice.
Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI. RAMA RAO MAVIDI (NOT PRESENT)
Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI P V S S S RAMA RAO
Counsel for the Respondents 1 & 2: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION
The Court made the following: ORDER
. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA honourable smt WRIT pETITIQNNfc39313^t3ei®
order. to be filed Writ Petition came The present
226 of the ConstitutionofIndiaseeking under Article
the following relief:-
other writ of Mandamus or any “ ..Issue a direction declaring the approp^ew^ itponlae in rejhsing to ratify action of the 2 ^ the petitioners the list of students admitted i institution under^ convener quota^ POLYCET 2016-1 ‘ unconstitutional uear 2016-17 as illega , presidential and contrary ^ ^ tL respondents to order, 1974 and_fy rnade by the petitioners consideraUtheadmissmn^eJy^^J in left over seats under ^ prove and POLYCET 20I6d7^mission -ua^^^^^ . the admissions made by me y pass...for hearing, there when the matter came up 2. Today . Learned on behalf of the petitioner is no representation has stated for Higher Education Government Pleader the matter pertains to the Polytechnic that as 2016-17, the cause in the for academic year admission for further adjudication does not survive writ petition has become infructuous. and the matter
2
- Considering the above submission, the Writ
Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this
Writ Petition shall stand closed.
SOI- V. SAVITHRI 60WR1 assistant registrar
//true copy//
SECTION OFFICER
To
rAMA RAO MAVIDI Advocate [OPUC] 1 One CC to SRI
rAMA RAO Advocate [OPUC]
4. Three CD Copies
Madhu
MBT
/ f
r
HIGH COURT
DATED:23/01/2024
ORDER
WP.No.39313of 2016
r;.
<br>\i
05. ZTi
s^
•k s' rs s •^v
i2
.-v *>V
V^OESl
DISMISSING THE WP AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Convener's refusal to ratify the list of students admitted under convener quota in POLYCET 2016-17 was illegal and arbitrary.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
G.S.R. & T.S.R. Education Society, represented by Secretary & Correspondent Kolli Ravi Kumar
Chirala Engineering College, represented by its Principal Yerlagadda Venubabu
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department
The Convener, Admissions, POLYCET-2014 Hyderabad
The Secretary, State Board of Technical Education & Training Hyderabad
V. Sujatha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
