Allowed

Kornu Surya Pradeep Kumar, S/o. K.Mohana Rao v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC27 Aug 2015WP/27433/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a regulation requiring med students to provide bank guarantees for the entire course duration. Noting a subsequent government order limiting this to succeeding years, the court set aside the burden of guaranteeing the full course fee and directed admission with a one-week grace period to furnish the required guarantee.

What did the court decide?

The condition imposed in the provisional admission order requiring the bank guarantee for the entire remaining course is set aside. Respondents directed to admit the petitioner on payment of first yea

Kornu Surya Pradeep Kumar, S/o. K.Mohana Rao Vs… — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.27433 of 2015

¶3

ORDER : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Subhash Reddy)

¶4

In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned Note 5 of the Notes in the annexure to G.O.Ms.No.41, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (C1) Department, dated 20.05.2015.

¶5

The petitioner is a student who is offered provisional admission into 1^st year MBBS Course in the 5^th respondent Private Unaided Medical College. The State of Telangana has issued G.O.Ms.No.41, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (C1) Department, dated 20.05.2015, fixing fee structure for the academic year 2015-16. Note 5 in the annexure to the said G.O. permits the managements of the institutions to seek bank guarantee towards tuition fee chargeable for the entire course, at the time of admission.

¶6

The petitioner secured rank of 115 in the Common Entrance Test conducted by the 4^th respondent Association and is issued provisional admission order by the 2^nd respondent-Convenor of Medical Common Entrance Test-AC2015 for Telangana State. As per the said admission order, the petitioner is asked to pay the tuition fee for the 1^st year and also furnish bank guarantee towards the tuition fee for the remaining period of course on or before 31.08.2015 by 5.00 P.M. It appears such condition for giving bank guarantee for the entire course is imposed based on the impugned Note in

¶7

annexure to G.O.Ms.No.41 dated 20.05.2015.

¶8

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶9

Though the petitioner has questioned the impugned clause on various grounds, when the matter is called for hearing, learned Government Pleader for Medical & Health has produced copy of the orders issued by the Government of Telangana in G.O.Ms.No.73 Health, Medical and Family Welfare (C1) Department, dated 26.08.2015, amending Note 5 in the annexure to G.O.Ms.No.41 dated 20.05.2015. The

¶10

amendment reads as under:

¶11

“The clause No.5 of Notes (both Medical & Dental) in Annexure to G.O.Ms.No.41, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (C1) Department, dated 20.05.2015 shall be substituted as follows:

¶12

FOR	READ AS
The managements of the institutions may seek Bank	The managements of the institutions may seek
Guarantee for tuition fee chargeable for the entire course.	Bank Guarantee for tuition fee chargeable for every succeeding year.
The Principals of all Medical/Dental Colleges matter accordingly.”	Private Unaided Non-Minority shall take necessary action in the

¶13

In view of the orders passed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.73, dated 26.08.2015, learned counsel for petitioner requested to dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondents to accept the bank guarantee towards the tuition fee equivalent to the tuition fee of the succeeding year.

¶14

As per the amended orders of the Government, it is clear that at the time of admission, institutions are required to collect tuition fee for one year and apart from the same, they can insist for furnishing bank guarantee equivalent to tuition fee payable for the succeeding year.

¶15

In view of the request made by the learned counsel for

¶16

petitioner and having regard to the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.73, dated 26.08.2015, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions:

¶17

1. The condition imposed in the provisional admission order issued by the 2^nd respondent, requiring the petitioner to furnish the bank guarantee towards the tuition fee chargeable for the remaining course, is hereby set aside.

¶18

2. As amended order is issued by the Government only on 26.08.2015, we direct the respondents to admit the petitioner on paying tuition fee payable for the 1^st year and the petitioner is granted one week time from today for furnishing bank guarantee towards the tuition fee for succeeding year.

¶19

3. It is made clear that the admission of petitioner will be subject to bank guarantee to be furnished by the petitioner within one week as ordered above.

¶20

Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶21

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶22

____________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶23

________________________________ JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶24

27.08.2015 Note: Issue CC by tomorrow B/o v v

Kornu Surya Pradeep Kumar, S/o. K.Mohana Rao v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kornu Surya Pradeep Kumar, S/o. K.Mohana Rao v. The State of Telangana

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 K. Bikshapathi Reddy Vs Debt Recovery Tribunal

Sri Mukesh Agarwal, Vs Mrs. Deepa Agarwal

Hussain Bin Waz Vs Shaik Akhar Pasha

Kamareddy Sanketh Reddy Vs The State of Telangana Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Adupala Swarna Madhuri Reddy Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Boppana Surendra Vs Chimmiri Anusha