Allowed

D.Reshma Sahithi, v. The State of Telangana, Health, Medical and Family

Telangana HC7 Feb 2017WP/34581/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged her denial of admission to a Government Dental College due to a reporting deadline that did not account for her distance. With Supreme Court intervention extending the deadline, this court disposed of the writ petition, directing respondents to approve her admission and allow her to continue studies.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to approve the petitioner's admission and allow her to continue the full course of study.

D.Reshma Sahithi, Vs The State of Telangana… — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

HON’ BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN

¶2

AND HON’ BLE MS. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI Writ Petition No.34581 of 2016

¶3

ORDER: ( per Hon’ble Sri Just ice V. Ramasubramanian )

¶4

The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition challenging the action of the respondents in giving her less than 24 hours of time to report at the Dental College to which she was allotted in the fourth phase of counseling for admission to professional medical course for the academic year 2016-17.

¶5

Heard Sri M.R.K.Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Medical & Health, Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, learned standing counsel for the 2^nd respondentUniversity and Sri P. Vishnu Vardhan Reddy, learned standing counsel for Dental Council of India.

¶6

Admittedly, the petitioner was allotted in the fourth phase of counseling held on 04.10.2016 to the 3^rd respondent college. The 3^rd respondent College is a Government Dental College. The petitioner was directed to report at or before 4 P.M. on 05.10.2016, along with the original certificates. The petitioner, residing at a place more than about 400 KMs away from Hyderabad, could reach Hyderabad only on 06.10.2016. But she was denied admission on the ground that deadline was over.

¶7

Thereafter, the petitioner came up with the above writ petition. Fortunately, the Supreme Court extended the last date of

¶8

¶9

admission, first up to 07.10.2016 and then up to 15.10.2016. Therefore, when the writ petition came up for hearing on 13.10.2016, we have passed an interim order to the following effect:

¶10

“ Mr. A. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the second respondent takes notice.

¶11

Issue notice to the third respondent returnable in two weeks.

¶12

In the meantime, the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to join the third respondent college, as the time limit given to her on 04.10.2016 to report along with the original certificates on 05.10.2016 was not sufficient to undertake a travel.”

¶13

Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner was permitted

¶14

to join the course on 14.10.2016. Since the said date was within extended deadline prescribed by the Supreme Court, the 3^rd respondent allowed her to pay fee and continue the curriculum. Now for the past nearly four months, the petitioner is continuing the course in the first year BDS.

¶15

The admission of the petitioner was by way of allotment made by the Convener. Therefore, it was a valid allotment. The admission has taken place before the deadline fixed by the Supreme Court. Therefore, neither the 2^nd respondent-University nor the Dental Council can have any objection to this writ petition being closed with a direction to approve the admission and allow her to continue the entire course of study.

¶16

Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents 2 and 4 to approve the admission of the petitioner and

¶17

¶18

allow her to continue full course of study. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this writ

¶19

petition, shall stand closed.

¶20

_______________________ V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J

¶21

______________ J. UMA DEVI, J

¶22

Date: 07.02.2017 BSS

¶23

¶24

HON’ BLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND HON’ BLE MS. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI

¶25

¶26

Writ Petition No.34581 of 2016

¶27

( per Hon’ble Sri Just ice V. Ramasubramanian)

¶28

BSS

¶29

Date: 07.02.2017

D.Reshma Sahithi, v. The State of Telangana, Health, Medical and Family

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Reshma Sahithi, v. The State of Telangana, Health, Medical and Family

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

M/s. Global Oil Industries Ltd., Vs The Assistant Commissioner

M/s. Lakshmi Metallurgy Ltd. Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Devarakonda Nagamani Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s.Manthena Satyanarxyana Raju Vs the Union of India

M/s. Venkateswara Traders Vs The Asst. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit)

The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs M/S Synergy Dooray Automotive Limited