Disposed

Mohammad Abdul Tauheed Siddiqui v. Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences

Telangana HC9 Aug 2012WA/992/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On the prayer for liberty to sit in the practical examination pending appeal, the court granted conditional liberty allowing the University to verify internal assessment eligibility. The writ appeal was disposed of on these terms without interference.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to verify internal assessment marks; appellant allowed to appear in practical examination if eligible; appeal outcome subject to final decision.

Mohammad Abdul Tauheed Siddiqui Vs Dr. N.T.R… — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶2

WRIT APPEAL NO.992 OF 2012

¶3

Dt: 09-08-2012.

¶4

Between:

¶5

MOHAMMED ABDUL TAUHEED SIDDIQUI .. APPELLANT

¶6

AND

¶7

DR.N.T.R.UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, KRISHNA DISTRICT, VIJAYAWADA REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR AND OTHERS .. RESPONDENTS

¶8

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶9

WRIT APPEAL NO.992 OF 2012

¶10

JUDGMENT: (Per THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE)

¶11

This writ appeal is filed aggrieved by an order dated 13-07-2012 passed by the Hon’ble single Judge in W.P.No.31792 of 2011, which was filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No.H/216/2009, Dated 6.5.2011 (sic) No.11314/E1A/ MP/MBBS/2011, Dated 18.11.2011 issued by the respondents 1 and 2 as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and to set aside the same. Before the Hon’ble single Judge, as there was no representation for the petitioner heard learned counsel for the respondents and disposed of the writ petition in terms of the order dated 13.7.2012 in W.P.No.19009 of 2012, wherein while declining to interfere with the impugned order, it has permitted the petitioner therein to file a statutory appeal.

¶12

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

On the prayer made before us on behalf of the appellant that the appellant should be allowed to sit in the practical examination, as he has already appeared in the theory examination in terms of the interim order dated 16.5.2012, the respondents be directed to allow the appellant/writ petitioner to sit in the practical examination. We further make it clear that such appearance will abide by the result of the appeal which has already been filed by the writ petitioner before the appropriate authority. It has also been informed to us by learned Standing Counsel for the University that generally the practical examinations are taken up before the theoretical examination by the University. It is further stated that a student is entitled to appear in the

¶14

practical examination in terms of his/her internal assessment made by the college. We are passing this order giving liberty to the respondents also to find out the appellant/petitioner’s eligibility with regard to his marks obtained in such assessment and if he is otherwise a fit candidate on the basis of the marks already obtained by him, he will be allowed to appear in the practical examination, if not already held. We further make it clear that this order will not create any equity in favour of the appellant/writ petitioner and further will not have any precedence over any other matter.

¶15

Since the Hon’ble single Judge declined to interfere with the writ petition and since the appellant/petitioner has already filed an appeal in the matter, we do not think that it is necessary for us to keep this matter pending. Accordingly, this writ appeal is disposed of on the above terms.

¶16

( PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ )

¶17

( VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR,

¶18

J )

¶19

Dt: 09-08-2012. CC today. BO/TNB

Mohammad Abdul Tauheed Siddiqui v. Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Abdul Tauheed Siddiqui 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abida Begum, Vs The Director General of Police

Siri Microfin Society, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kandlakunta Rajamohan Vs Uco Bank, rep. by its Authorised Officer

C.H. Anantha Ramulu, Vs Honorary Secretary

The Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs Nalluri Srinivas

Government of Andhra PRadesh, Revenue (Ex.Ii) Department Vs Ayyagari Srinivas