Dismissed

Sonika Reddy Enakonda, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC4 Sept 2015WP/28289/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a candidate seeking admission to an M.B.B.S course. The court held that since the petitioner missed the counseling and all Category - B seats were filled by other candidates, the petition lacked merit, especially as the initial bank guarantee condition was subsequently amended.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition are closed.

Sonika Reddy Enakonda, Vs The State of Telangana — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

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

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.28289 OF 2015

¶3

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

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondents in not giving admission to the petitioner in M.B.B.S. course under Category – B seats for the academic year 2015 – 16, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶5

As per the notification issued by the 2^nd respondent, exam for filling up Category – B seats was conducted on 03.06.2015 and the counselling was conducted by the Convenor on 21.08.2015 and 22.08.2015.

¶6

In this Writ Petition, it is the case of the petitioner that she has appeared for MCET-AC – 2015 examination conducted by the Association of Colleges for getting admission in M.B.B.S. Course under Category – B seats, but in view of the orders passed by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.41, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (C1) Department, dated 20.05.2015, imposing a condition that the candidate seeking admission in M.B.B.S./Dental course shall furnish bank guarantee equivalent to four years tuition fee, she did not attend the counselling, as she could not produce such bank guarantee, but, however, subsequently, the Government has passed orders in G.O.Ms.No.73, Health, Medical and Family

¶7

Welfare (C1) Department, dated 26.08.2015, amending such condition by restricting the bank guarantee towards tuition fee chargeable for every succeeding year and hence, a direction be given to the respondents to consider her case for admission in M.B.B.S. course for the academic year 2015 – 16.

¶8

On instructions, it is submitted by Sri P. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent, that all the seats covered under Category – B were filled up by issuing admission orders to the students, who participated in the counselling on 21.08.2015 and 22.08.2015, and as per the schedule notified by the respondents, M.B.B.S. classes commence from 01.09.2015 onwards. It is further submitted that though the petitioner has appeared for the entrance test conducted by the 2^nd respondent, she has not attended for the counselling held on 21.08.2015 and 22.08.2015.

¶9

A consensus arrangement has been arrived at between the 2^nd respondent – Association and the Government for filling up Category – B seats and as per that agreement, the 2^nd respondent has conducted entrance test and completed the counselling on 21.08.2015 and 22.08.2015. It is true that, as per the fee structure notified by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.41, dated 20.05.2015, apart from paying

¶10

tuition fee for one year, students are required to furnish bank guarantee equivalent to tuition fee of the remaining period of the course, but subsequently, the same was limited to one year vide orders passed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.73, dated 26.08.2015.

¶11

As much as the petitioner has not attended the counselling held on 21.08.2015 and 22.08.2015 and as it is represented by the learned counsel for respondents that all the Category – B seats in M.B.B.S. course are filled up, we do not find any merit in this Writ Petition for grant of directions as prayed for, at this stage.

¶12

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. No costs.

¶13

______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J

¶14

___________________________ A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, J September 04, 2015 MD

Sonika Reddy Enakonda, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonika Reddy Enakonda, 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

Ch. Veera Bhadra Rao, Vs State Bank of India

I.Venkateswara Rao, Vs Corporation Bank

Sri. Myadaboina Srinivas, Vs State Bank of India

Kum. v.Uma Maheswari Vs The State of Telangana

Kamala Bai Vs Rajan Singh

Gorle Bhavya Sree, Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary