Allowed

Vadrevu Kamala Gyana Sudha v. Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences

Telangana HC12 Jun 2009WP/4967/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking declaration that petitioners were erroneously detained from appearing for a paediatrics final MBBS exam due to attendance errors. After an inquiry confirmed a clerical mistake, the Court directed the University to allow petitioners to appear and declare results.

What did the court decide?

Declaration of eligibility for examination and direction to University to declare results and issue certificates subject to MC of AI approval.

Vadrevu Kamala Gyana Sudha Vs Dr. N.T.R… — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶3

PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO : 4967 of 2009

¶5

Between:

¶6

1 Vadrevu Kamala Gyana Sudha /o. Dr. Vadrevu Ravi R/o. H.No. 21-1-24, Jawahar Street, Salipeta, Kakinada, E.G. District.

¶7

2 Sandeep Nadella S/o. Narayana Murthy R/o.Flat No. 301, Chittoori Mansion Apartments H.No. 47-2-9, Gandhipuram-I Rajahmundry, E.G. District.

¶8

..... PETITIONERS

¶9

AND

¶10

1 Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences A.P. Vijayawada-08 Rep. by its Registrar. 2 G.S.L. Medical College, Lakshmipuram, Rajanagaram, Rajahmundry-533 294 Rep. by its Principal. 3 The Professor & Head of the Department, Paediatrics Department, G.S.L. Medical College, Rajahmundry

¶11

.....RESPONDENTS

¶12

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ 1) declare the Proceedings NO. 326/E1/Exams/09 dt. 9-3-2009 as illegal, and arbitrary; ii) declare the action of the Respondents in not permitting the petitioners to appear for the 'Paediatrics' Final MBBS Part-II Examination scheduled to be held on 14-3-2009 as illegal and arbitrary and iii) consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioners for appearing in the 'Paediatrics' Final MBBS Part-II Examination scheduled to be held on 14-3-2009 duly declaring the result of the examination of Paediatrics Final MBBS Part-II and pass

¶13

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.VIDYASAGAR

¶14

Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.D.V.NAGARJUNA BABU

¶15

The Court made the following :

¶16

THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶17

WRIT PETITION No : 4967 of 2009

¶18

O R D E R :

¶19

This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in not permitting the petitioners herein to appear for the Paediatric Final MBBS Part-II examinations held on 14-03-2009 is arbitrary and illegal.

¶20

Both the petitioners are studying MBBS in the second respondent-college at Rajahmundry. When the hall tickets were issued for the final MBBS Part-II examinations, scheduled in the month of March 2009, it was found that the writ petitioners were detained for the subject of Pediatrics on the ground of shortage of attendance.

¶21

The petitioners disputed the allegation that they were falling short of the attendance and contended that in fact both of them possessed the required percentage since they had attended the theory/practical classes regularly.

¶22

However, the first respondent-University vide letter dated 0903-2009 informed that the petitioners were detained as per the report sent by the second respondent-college itself. Though the second respondent-college sent a subsequent report clarifying that both the petitioners possessed the requisite percentage of attendance and there was a clerical mistake while sending the first report, the same was not accepted by the first respondent-University.

¶23

Aggrieved by the said action, the present writ petition is filed.

¶24

This Court, while directing Rule nisi, by order dated 12-03-2009 directed the first respondent-University to permit the petitioners to appear for Pediatrics MBBS Part-II examination scheduled on 14-03-2009. By a subsequent order dated 01-05-2009, there was further a direction to the respondents to declare the result of the petitioners in Pediatrics and to issue necessary certificates, however, the certificates so issued shall be subject to approval of the Medical Council of India.

¶25

Though no counter affidavit is filed, the learned standing counsel for the University, under instructions submitted that during the pendency of this writ petition, the first respondent-University appointed an Enquiry Officer to verify the attendance records with reference to the petitioners and to decide whether the revised attendance sent by the second respondent-college was genuine or not.

¶26

Accordingly, a thorough enquiry was conducted and a report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer on 19-03-2009 stating that the difference in percentage might have occurred due to various methods of computation and that it was always possible to get minor differences in the percentages of attendances. Thus it was opined by the Enquiry Officer as under:

¶27

1. There is no evidence of any tampering with the records.

¶28

2. None of the four students have any shortage of attendance.

¶29

3. The attendance records are maintained very well.

¶30

4. Their claim of typographical error is correct.

¶31

A copy of the said enquiry report dated 19-03-2009 has been placed before this Court by the learned standing counsel appearing for the University.

¶32

Having regard to the said enquiry report, I am of the opinion that the University is bound to accept the particulars of attendance furnished by the second respondent-college for the second time and

¶33

consequently, the petitioners herein are entitled to appear for the examinations.

¶34

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of declaring that the petitioners herein are eligible to appear for the Pediatrics final MBBS Part-II examination held in March, 2009 and consequently directing the first respondent-University to declare the results of the petitioners and take necessary further steps in accordance with law. No costs.

¶35

______________ G. ROHINI, J Dated: 12-062009 Note: Issue C.C. by Monday. B/o KLP

Vadrevu Kamala Gyana Sudha v. Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vadrevu Kamala Gyana Sudha v. Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences

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

Sri Rama Rajaka Sahakara, Vs The District Collector

B. Krishna Reddy Vs Government of a.P., Rep. by its Prl. Secretary

Madhsudhan Reddy Vs Government of a.P., rep. by its Prl. secretary

M.S.R. Anjeneyulu Vs The Station House Officer

P.Razia Begum Vs The State of Ap., rep.by its District Collector

S.Laxmi Vs State of Andhra Pradesh rep by Secretary