Allowed

Bathula Shainy Sravanthi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC2 Jul 2018WP/22514/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a meritorious NEET candidate who failed to upload her application online due to lack of worldly wisdom, sought admission to MBBS/BDS courses. The High Court directed the University of Hyderabad to receive her application by 02-07-2018 and consider her for the second round of web counseling.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent University to facilitate the petitioner to submit her application on or before 02-07-2018 and explore the possibility of including her in the second round of web counseling

Bathula Shainy Sravanthi Vs The State of Andhra… — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶2

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND

¶3

HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

¶4

W.P.No.22514 of 2018

¶5

Date: 02-07-2018

¶6

# Between :

¶7

Bathula Shainy Sravanthi, D/o Mutyala Rao, Aged about 18 years, Occ: Student, R/o D.No.18-16-6/A, 23^rd Ward, Kakumanuari Street, Ambedkar Nagar, Ponnuru, Guntur District

¶8

… Petitioner

¶9

And

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary (Health, Medical & Family Welfare) Department, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District and another

¶11

… Respondents

¶12

! Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. T.D. Phani Kumar

¶13

^ Counsel for Respondents : Mr. Taddi Nageswara Rao

¶14

G.P. for Medical & Health

¶15

¶16

VRS, J & NBY, J

¶17

W.P.No.22514 of 2018

¶18

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND

¶19

HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

¶20

W.P.No.22514 of 2018

¶21

ORDER: (per V. Ramasubramanian,J)

¶22

Heard Mr. T.D. Phani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Taddi Nageswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the 2^nd respondent University.

¶23

The petitioner is a meritorious candidate having secured 447 marks out of 500 marks in All India Senior School Certificate Examination and also having secured the All India Rank of 69910 and the State Rank of 2684 in NEET. Though the petitioner is academically smart, she is not street smart or worldly wise and hence, she failed to upload her application online, for admission to MBBS/BDS Course for the academic year 2018-19. The reasons for her failure are sought to be explained.

¶24

The petitioner has now come up seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the 2^nd respondent University to permit her to participate in the admission process.

¶25

Mr. Taddi Nageswara Rao, learned Standing counsel for the 2^nd respondent University produced a copy of the schedule for verification of certificates and Web Counseling. The last date for filing of applications was 24-06-2018. The certificates verification commenced from 26-06-2018 and is due to expire on 01-07-2018. The University has given written instructions to the learned Standing Counsel which read as follows:

¶26

“The University has issued Notification dt:19-62018 for submitting online Applications for admission into MBBS/BDS courses fort the Academic Year 2018-19. It was clearly given in the notification for information of students that the same online

¶27

¶28

VRS, J & NBY, J

¶29

W.P.No.22514 of 2018

¶30

application will be considered for all the rounds of counseling including MOP-UP Counseling and also for Stray Vacancies, if any. There is no further notification inviting online applications. Manual applications also will not be accepted. All the selections will be made from the list of applied candidates and who found eligible after verification of original certificates. The selections will be made in all phases from the same list. The university will not issue any further notification inviting applications. The merit list will not be disturbed/changed. No names will be included/inserted to the list of candidates applied/merit list.”

¶31

In view of the fact that a rigid schedule of timeframe has been

¶32

fixed by the University and the same is also in the light of the orders of the Supreme Court, it may not really be possible at this stage to redress the grievance of the petitioner fully. But, at the same time, considering the fact that the petitioner is a meritorious candidate having secured 2684 rank in the State, we are of the considered view that without causing hindrance to the entire process and without disturbing the candidates who have already exercised the web options, the application of the petitioner can be received and at least considered in the second round of counseling.

¶33

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent University to facilitate the petitioner to submit her application on or before 02-07-2018 and to explore the possibility of including the petitioner at least in the second round of web counseling.

¶34

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

¶35

________________________ V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J

¶36

____________________ K. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J

¶37

Date: 02-07-2018

¶38

Note: Issue C.C. today B.O./Ksn

Bathula Shainy Sravanthi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bathula Shainy Sravanthi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Principal Secretary

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

Challa Ganesh Kumar Vs M/S.Shriram City Union Finance Limited

Turpati Srikanth , Vs Union of India

M/s.City Corp Finance India Ltd. Vs U.Sreekanth