Dismissed

V.M.Madhava Rao Kukatpally Hyd v. N.T.R.University Vijayawada AND2 Ors.

Telangana HC27 Oct 2004WP/6308/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged action regarding seat allotment for MD (Ayurveda) course academic year 1998-99. Court held that as the subject matter related to a past academic session, no direction could be granted, making the prayer infructuous.

What did the court decide?

None, prayer held infructuous as the subject matter concerned a past academic session.

V.M.Madhava Rao Kukatpally Hyd Vs… — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2004)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.6308 of 2000

¶7

Between:

¶8

Veera Malla Madhava Rao, S/o. V. Raja Ram Rao, aged 29 years, Occ: Student, R/o. Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

¶9

..... PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1. The N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, Krishna District, rep. by its Registrar.

¶12

2. The Principal, Dr.B.R.K.R. Government Ayurvedic College,

¶13

Erragadda, Hyderabad.

¶14

3. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its

¶15

Principal Secretary, Health, Medical & Family Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶16

.....RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to allot the unreserved seats to the in-service candidates who got lesser rank contrary to the regulations for admission to M.D. (Ayurveda) Course as bad, arbitrary, illegal and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to allot an unreserved seats to the petitioner in Kayachikitsa or SSP subject in M.D. (Ayurveda) Course.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.C.DAMODHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: DR.Y.PADMAVATHI Counsel for the Respondent No. 3: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

¶19

The Court made the following:

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

The petitioner herein is a graduate in B.A.M.S. (Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery). He claims to belong to BC-A category. He appeared for entrance test for admission to 1^st year M.D. (Ayurveda) for the academic year 1998-’99 and claimed to be obtained rank No.15 in general and 1^st rank among B.C-A & D category. He also appeared for the counselling. However, he was not admitted. Therefore, he filed the writ petition alleging that a less ranking candidate was admitted to M.D. (Ayurveda) course and seeking direction to the respondents to allot one unreserved seat to the petitioner in M.D. (Ayurveda) in Kayachikitsa or Salya Salakya & Prasuti Tantra subject. As pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for N.T.R. University for Health Sciences, the subject matter of the writ petition relates to M.D. (Ayurveda) course for the academic year 1998-’99. Therefore, at this point of time, no direction can be granted to the respondents. The prayer made in the writ petition has become infructuous.

¶22

The writ petition is therefore dismissed. No costs.

¶23

V.V.S. RAO, J

¶24

October 27, 2004.

¶25

¶26

¶27

1. The Registrar, N.T.R. University of Health Sciences,

¶28

Vijayawada, Krishna District.

¶29

2. The Principal, Dr.B.R.K.R. Government Ayurvedic College,

¶30

Erragadda, Hyderabad.

¶31

3. The Principal Secretary, Health, Medical & Family Welfare Department,

¶32

Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶33

4. Two CCs to the Government Pleader for Higher Education,

¶34

High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (O.U.T)

¶35

5. Two C.D. Copies.

V.M.Madhava Rao Kukatpally Hyd v. N.T.R.University Vijayawada AND2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.M.Madhava Rao Kukatpally Hyd v. N.T.R.University Vijayawada AND2 Ors.

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

Renukuntla Komraiah, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

C.R.Srinivas Vs Osmania University

Khaleel Siddiqui High School, Noonepalli, Vs The Commissioner and Director of School Education

S.Akbar Shah Vs Commr. Board of Intermediate Edn. Hyd

Mr.K.Harsha Hyd Vs Its Sec High Edu Saifabad HYDAND4ORS

St.Stanley Education Society Hyd Vs Prl Secty Hiher Education Dept Hyd and Ano