Dismissed

Dr.Madhurapantula Anil Kumar v. Union of India

Telangana HC13 Apr 2017WP/43709/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the restriction of MD/MS entrance examinations to Chandigarh only. The Court held that the examination authority's policy decision was conscious and feasible given security concerns, and thus, no interference was warranted.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions stood closed.

Dr.Madhurapantula Anil Kumar Vs Union of India — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE A. RAMALI NGESWARA RAO

¶2

Writ Petition No.43709 of 2016

¶3

Order:

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶5

The petitioner is a graduate in medicine having obtained the degree from Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Belgum, KLE University, Karnataka State. He wants to appear for entrance examination for MD/MS course conducted by the second respondent. The entrance examination is being conducted only in Chandigarh and at no other place. Aggrieved by such action, the present Writ Petition is filed on the ground that other entrance examinations by reputed institutions are being conducted in various centers and not conducting entrance examination by the second respondent at least in one of the centers in South India is bad in law.

¶6

The respondents filed a counter stating that from several years the second respondent has been conducting the entrance examination for MD/MS course only in Chandigarh and at no other place. It is also stated that MD/MS examination of PGI is a very sensitive examination and involves a lot of invigilation and it is found not feasible to have examination centers outside Chandigarh. In this era of technology, the candidates use hi-tech devices for cheating during the examination and in fact an incident of hi-tech cheating took place in the year 2012 (January 2013 session) and the same was investigated by the CBI. To overcome such situation, the respondent is required to make various arrangements such as photography, biometrics and frisking of all the candidates and installation of jammers. Now, they are contemplating to conduct online examination and a decision would be taken soon. As and when such

¶7

system is introduced various centers in the country would be thrown open to the candidates.

¶8

Since the second respondent has taken a policy decision not to conduct the examination at the centers outside Chandigarh and the said practice is being followed by several years, this Court is not inclined to interfere with such policy decision. It is also noticed that the second respondent is contemplating the introduction of online examination in order to allow the students from various centers. In view of the conscious decision taken by the second respondent, this Court finds no merit in the Writ Petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶9

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in

¶10

this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶11

____________________________ A. RAMALI NGESWARA RAO, J

¶12

Date: 13.04.2017 Nsr

Dr.Madhurapantula Anil Kumar v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Madhurapantula Anil Kumar v. Union of India

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

Punjab National Bank, Arm Branch, Hyderabad, Vs Regional Passport Officer

Chandra Mouli Balisetti, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Nakka Sridhar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

D.Suguna Vs Sri H.Y.Dora

Manimela Tarun, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. b its Principal

Godi Kasulama, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh