Dismissed

A.Durga Bhavani v. The Union of India

Telangana HC9 Feb 2022WP/7034/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a writ petition wherein the petitioner sought to be declared a local candidate for NEET admissions in Telangana. Relying on the Presidential Order, the Court held the petitioner did not meet the criteria for four consecutive years of study or seven years of residence in the State.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed. The petitioner is not considered a local candidate and her case is treated in the open category.

A.Durga Bhavani Vs The Union of India — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAO

¶2

(Special Original J urisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 7034 OF 2022

¶8

Between:

¶9

A.Durga Bhavani, D/o A. Ravi Prakash Reddy, Age 20yrs, Occ^Student, Ryo H.No.1-12, ChinnaDhanwada village, Waddepally^{N,4andal, At presentRaloli} l.4andal, Jogulamba Gadwal District,^{([,4ahabubnagar} District)^{TelanganaState.}

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

'1. The Union of lndia, represented by its Secretary to Government of lndia, Ministry of Education, l,4edical, Health and^{Familywelfare,New Delhi, New Delhi.}

¶13

The state of Andhra Pradesh, Represented^{by its PrincipalSecretary, Ministryof} Medical and Health Sciences, Secretariat,^Amaravathi.

¶14

The State of Telangana, Represented^{by its PrincipalSecretary, Ministryof} Medical and Health Sciences, Secretariat,^Hyderabad.

¶15

Kalo.ii Narayana Rao University^{of Nledical and Health Sciences, Warangal,} Telangana Represented by its Competent^authority.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution^{of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased} to issue an appropriate writ or order^{or direction more particularlyone in Writ of} [/andamus declaring the aclion of^{3rd and 4th respondents publishingthe} provisional/final merit list of petilioner as local candidate of^{Sri.Venkateswara} University, Tirupathi, A.P in^{NEET qualifying examinationfor the year 2021-22as} illegal, arbitrary and contrary^{to the guidelinesof local status and violation of Article} 14, 15 & 21 ol the constitution^{of lndia consequentlydirect the 3rd and4th} respondents to consider the^{petitioneras local candidateof OsmaniaUniversity,} Hyderabad in NEET admissions^{andallotseat in Telangana state.}

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶19

Petition under Section^{151 CPC praying thatin thecircumstances statedin} the affidavit filedⁱⁿ support^{of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct} the 3rd & 4th respondents to^{consider the petitioner as local candidate of osmania}

¶20

University, Hyderabad^{& Telanganastateand to allot seat on meritas local} candidate of Osmania^{University in Telangana during pendency of writ petition}

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl'^M.SAROJREDDY

¶22

Counsel for the^{RespondentNo.1:SRINAMAVARAPU RAJESWAR} RAO(CENTRAL^{GOVT COUNSEL)}

¶23

Counsel for the^{Respondent No's.2 &3:GPFORMINISTRY OF MEDICAL AND} HEALTH SCIENCES

¶24

Counsel for the^{RespondentNo.4:SRlA.PRABHAKARRAO(SC)}

¶25

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶26

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATIS H CHANDRA SHARMA AND

¶27

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶28

W.P.No.7034 of 2022

¶29

ORDER: Per Hon'ble sn J']stice Abhtta^d Ku.mar Sh!1uit,

¶30

This Writ Petition is fiied seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 in publishing the provisional/final merit list of petitioner as local candidate of Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupathi, A.P. in NEET qualifying examination for the year 2O2l-22 as illegal and arbitrary and consequentl't. direct the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to consider the petitioner as local candidate of Osmania University, H1'derabad in NEET admissions and allot seat in Telangana State.

¶31

Heard Sri M.Saroj Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.Rajesr.vara Rao, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the l"t respondent, the learned Government Pleader for Medical and Health appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for 4th respondent.

¶32

It has been contended by t}te petitioner that she is a resident of Chinna Dhanwada village, Waddepaily Mandal, Karimnagar District, presently, Jogulamba Gadwal District. It has been contended by the petitioner that she has studied classes-l to IV in her vrliage and as there is no higher schools from in her village, she has studied classes V to X

¶33

St. Joseph's English School,^{N.R.Peta, Kurnool Districtand} the petitioner has studied intermediate^{from Sri Chaitanya} Junior College at Hyderabad and the^{petitioner has appeared} for National Eligibility -cum- Entrance Test^(NEET)for admission into M.B.B.S. course and she has secured^decent rank in the said examination.

¶34

The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are not treating the petitioner as a local candidate in the State of Telangana on the ground that she has not studied for four consecutive years preceding the qualifying the examination for admission into M.B.B.S. course.

¶35

Leamed counsel for the petitioner had contended that though the petitioner is not fulfilling the first proviso to the Presidential Order as she has studied in two or three local areas and in those set of circumstances, the petitioner fulfils the second proviso to the Presidential Order which states that if a person, who studies more than two local areas other than the more number of years studied in a consecutive period of seven years, have been taken into account and by applying said analory, the petitioner has to be declared as local candidate to the Telangana Statc. Learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Petition directing the respondents to her as local candidate of Telangana area and also further direct the

¶36

L-

¶37

HCJ & AKS I w.P.No ?034 of2022

¶38

respondents to cor-rsider the case of the petitioner for admission into M.B.B.S. course by treating her as a local candidate of Teiangana area.

¶39

I-earned Government Pleader for respondents had contended that as per the Presidential Order, one must study for four consecutive years leading to the qualifying examinaLion and if the candidate is not fulfilling^{the first} condition, then the candidate must at least^{residein the State} of Telangana for consecutive^period of^{sevenyearsitself.} Admittedly, in the instant case, the^{petitioner has studied} classes V to 10 at St. Joseph's English^School at^Kurnool District and the petitioner has studied two^{year intermediate} course at H-vderabad and the^petitioner is^{havingonly t!i'o} years study in the State of Telangana and^{hence, the} petitioner is not fulfitling the conditions^{of local candidate.}

¶40

Therefore, the case of^{the petitioner cannotbe} considered as a local candidate^{to the Stateof Telangana.} However, the case of the^{petitioner would be consideredin the} open category but not as a^{local candidate as State of} Telangana. Therefore,^{there are no meritsin the WritPetition} and the same is liable to^{be dismissed.}

¶41

This Court, having^{consideredtherival} submissions made by^{the parties, is of the consideredview} that the^{petitioner is not fulfillingthe definitionof a local} candidate as^{admittedly the petitioner has not studiedfor} /./

¶42

four consecutive^{years leadingto qualifyingthe exarnination} and even in the second^{provisoalso, the petitioneris not} fulfilling the criteria of^{local candidate as defined in the} Presidential Order.^{Admittedly, the 'localcandidate'is} defined in presidential^{Order viz., the AndhraPradesh Public} Employment (Organization of^{Local CadresandRegulation of} Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975,^{which reads as under:}

¶43

"7. Loco.l^{Co;nd.ld.o;te:-(1) A candidate} for^direct recruttment to^{(lnA post} shall be^{regarded as a local} candidate in relation to a local^area.

¶44

(a) In cases wh.ere a minimum ed.ucational E:altfication lr,s been prescibed for recruitment^{to the post.}

¶45

(i) if he hns studied in an educational^{in'stitulionor} educational instittttions in such^{local area} for^{a periodof} not less th.an four consecutiue academic^gearsending wtth the academtc gear in u-thich he appeared^{or, as the} case mag be, first appeared for the^{releuantqualifying} examination; or

¶46

(it tahere d.uring the whole or anA part of the four conseqttive academic^years ending with^{the acad"emic} geor in uhich he appeared or as the case may be, ftrst appeared for the relevant^qtaltfuing examination^{he has} not stl.Ldied in o.nA educational institution, if he^has resided in that local area for a peiod of not^less than four^{gears immediatelAprecedingthe dateof} commencement of the^qualifging examincLtion in^uthich he appeared or as the case mctA be, frst^appeared.

¶47

(b) In cases where no minimum educational^{qualtJi.cation} has been prescibed for recruitment to the^post, if he hes resided in that local area for a^{peiodoJ'notless} than four Aeors immediatelg^proceeding lhe date^on Lrhtch the post is nolirted for^rectuLtmcnt.

¶48

{(c)^{In cases where uisuallg handicapped Qnd hearing} hand.icapped persons studied in the speciaL schools meant for them, the natiue^place of the^parents of such uisuallg handicapped. and heaing handicapped persons,)

¶49

(2) A candidote for direct recruitment to ang post ttho is not regarded.^qs a loc@l candidate under sub paragraph (1) in relation to anA local area, shaLt.

¶50

(a) in cases where a minimum, educational qualif.cation has been prescibed for recruitment to the post,-

¶51

HCJ & AKS.] W.P No 7034 of2022

¶52

(

¶53

O tf he has studied in educational tnstitutions in the State far a period of not less lhan seven consecutive academic gears ending with academic year tn uthich he appeared ar as lhe cqse maA be, rtrst appeared for the releuant qualtfAing examinatio, be regarded^qs a local candidate in relation to-

¶54

(l) Such local area tuhere he has studied for the maximum peiod out af the said peiod of seuen Aears; or

¶55

where the periods of his study in two or more local areas are equal, such local areas where he has studied last in such equaL peiods;

¶56

(tl iJ, during the Luhole or anA part of the seuen consecutiue ecademic Aears ending with the academic aears^{in which he appeared or as the case maAbe} rt.rst appeared. for the releuant^qualifging examination, he has not shtdied tn the educational institutions in ang tocal area, but has resided in the State during tle^whole of the said. pertod of seuen gears, be regarded as a loeal candidote in relation to-

¶57

(1) such local area u.there he has resided for a maximum period out of the said^peiod of seuen^gears: or

¶58

(2) uhere the periods of his residence in tuto or more local areqs are equa\ such local areas uhere^he has resided last in such equal^periods;

¶59

(b) /n ccses uhere no minimum educqtional qualification has been prescribed for recruitment to tlLe post, if he has resided in the State for^q Peiod of^not less than seuen Uears immediatelA^{precedingthe date} on which lhe post is notlfied for^{recruitment, be} regarded es o local candidote in relation to'

¶60

(i) such locol arect where he has^resided for^the mqximum period oul of the said^{period of seuen gears;} or

¶61

(ii) Luhere the peiods of his^{residenceis two or more} Iocal areas are equal such local area where^{he has} resided Lasl in such equol peiods."

¶62

(G.O.Ms.No.168, dated 10-3- 1977)

¶63

Explq.no,tlon:- For the^purpose of^the Paragraph.

¶64

(i) educcttionql institution means a Uniuersitg or anA educqtionql institution recognized bg the^State Gouernment, a lJniuersitg or^{other competentaLtthoitg;}

¶65

(ii) reteuant quatifuing examination in reLation^to a^post means;

¶66

(a) the examination, o pass in which is the^minimum educational^{qualif.cation prescibed} for^{the post;}

¶67

(b) the Maticulation examination or an excTmination declared bA the State Gouemment to be equiualent to t he Matricwlation e xamindtio n :

¶68

uhicheuer is louter; and

¶69

(iii) in reckoning the consecutiue academic gears duing uhich a candidate has studied, ang period of interruptton of his studg bg reason of his failure to pass ang examination shall be disregarded.

¶70

(iu) the question uhether an! candidate for direct recruitment to anV post has resid.ed in ang tocal area shall be determined. uith rekrence to the places uhere the candidate actualtg resided and not with reference to the resi<1ence of his parents or other guardian {Vide G.O. Ms. No. 1 68, G.A. (SPF. A) Dept., dt. 1 0-3 -7 7 ).

¶71

A perusal of the Presidential Order makes it very

¶72

clear that one must study for four consecutive years preceding the qualifying the examination or a candidate who reside in the State of Telangana for a period of seven years. Admittedly in the instant case, the petitioner is not fulfilling the definition of local candidate. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.

¶73

Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶74

SD/.T.JAYASREE

¶75

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR t-

¶76

¶77

//TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶78

To, 1. One CC to SRl. M.SAROJ REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRl, NAMAVARAPU RAJESWAR RAO(CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) Advocate [OPUCj

¶79

1. Two CCs to GP'FoR MINISTRY OF MEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES,High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

¶80

1. one CC to SRl. A.PRABHAKAR RAO(SC) Advocate IOPUC] 5. Two CD Copies. 6. One Spare Copy.

¶81

GB BS .

HIGH COURT

DATED:09/0212022

ORDER

WP.No.7034 of 2022

1nE Sih re-
Y
,)3 25FEB2|]22
-t
I

¶87

DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS.

¶88

\ \J
@
2<br>

¶89

A.Durga Bhavani v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Durga Bhavani v. The 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

Emmadi Ramakrishna Vs The State of Telangana

M. Krishna Vs The Registrar (Administration)

T. Ramadasappa Naidu Vs The State of Telangana

P Satish Kumar, Hyderabad Vs Prl Secy, Cons.Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies, Hyd and Anr.

Smt. Vanitha Bai Vs The State of Telangana

K Shankar Reddy Vs Prl.Secy., Panchayat Raj Dept., Hyd., and 2 Others