Dismissed

Boddu Manisha, v. Sri Konda Laxman Telangana State Horticulture University

Telangana HC1 Apr 2022WP/8135/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged university notifications disqualifying candidates with Intermediate qualifications and prescribing an upper age limit. The court dismissed the petition as the petitioner had not approached the court with clean hands, having filed the application with incorrect birth details.

What did the court decide?

The Writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs and miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Boddu Manisha, Vs Sri Konda Laxman Telangana… — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT^FOR THE^{STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY^{OF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY TWO}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^DR. JUSTICE^G.RADHARANI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO:8135 OF 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

Boddu Manisha,, D/o^{B. lr/ahesh, Dateof Birth} 1s^{26/02/19-96(agei 2Syears.6} ,onins ani OS' days as on^{31lO'l2o21)R/o} -salapa.lly-Village, Pegadapalle Mandal, Jagitial Disirict^{(Erstwhile Karimnagar District),Telangana State}

¶8

,..PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

Sri Konda Laxman Telanqana^{State Horticulture University, Mulugu.(village} ind lvlandal),siddipet District ,^{Telangana-502279. represented by its} Registrar

¶11

...RESPONDENT

¶12

Petition under Article^{226 of the constitutionof lndiapraying that in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavitfiled therewith, the High Court may be} pleased to issue any appropriate writ,^{order or direction particularlyone in the} nature of writ of mandamus,^{declaringthe action of the Respondentin} disqualifying the Petitioner^{and the candidates who passed lntermediateor the} Higher studies as ineligible^{for applyingto the Horticulture Diplomacoursefor} the Academic Year^{2021-22,in clause -1 (b) of the Notification dated 02-12-} 2O?1, in spite of striking^{down the similar clause-l-Bin the Notificationsdated} 2610712017 and 17to9l2o2o^{and prescribingthe upper agelimit of 22 years as on} 311O8t2021 in clause-3 0f^{the said Notificationdaled0211212021 , atbiltaty,} illegal, unreasonable^{and violativeof Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) and 21 of the} constitution of lndia^{andconsequently struck downthe saidportionsof the} Notification daled 02-12-2021^{and direct the Respondentto acceptthe} Petitioner,s online Application^{No. SKLTSHU-DlP -2021- 00055,for Horticulture} Diploma course, and^{consider her candidaturefor admissioninto Horticulture} DiplomacoursefortheAcademicYear2O2l-22,basedonherMeritandher

¶13

BC(D) Social Status without^{reference to her age and her parlsin Intermediate} Course,^pursuant to^.he Notification^{dated02-12-2021issued by the Respondent-}

¶14

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶15

Petition unde Section 151 CPC^praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed n support of the^petition, the High Court^{rray br: pleased to} direct the Respon ,ent to accept the Petitioner's Online^{App ication No.} SKLTSHU-DIP.2O2. -00055, for Horticulture Diploma Course and accordingly consider her candid rture for admission into Horticulture Diplorna^{Course for the} Academic Year 20 '.1-22, based on her lvlerit and her^{BC(D)Social Status,} without reference to her age and her^pass in lntermediate^{Course, by suspending} last sentence in Cl ruse-l-b, with regard to^{qualification} Clause^{and Clause -3} with regard to ag r qualification in the guidelines, issued^pursuant to the Notification dated 0 11212021, issued by the Respondent,^{pencing the abovewrit} petition.

¶16

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶17

Between:

¶18

Boddu Manisl a,, D/o B. Mahesh,^Date of^{Birthis 26lo2h9')6(aged 25years 6} months and⁽ 5 days as on 31/08/2021) R/o^{Salapally-Vllage, Pegadapalle} Mandal, Jagit rl Disirict (Erstwhile Karimnagar^{District),Telangana State}

¶19

...PETITIONER

¶20

AND

¶21

1 Sri Konda La) man Telangana State Horticulture University^{It4ulugu (village} and lvlandal),: iiddipet Disirict , Telangana -502279. represt:nted by its Registrar

¶22

...RESPONDEI{T/ RESPONDENT

¶23

2 Gajulapati At rinay S/o. Gajulapati Mahender, Date of Birth: 05-04-2002⁽¹⁹ years, 4 mon -rs, 26 days as on 31-08-2021) Application ltlo - 44, Rank - 65, GPA - 8.8, C rste - BC-D (lt/en), Serial No. 66 in Revised^l-ist.

¶24

3 Peddi Shrav: ri D/o. Peddi Srinivas, Date of Birth: 05-04-2003^,ll 8^years,1 I days as on 3 -08-2021) Application No - 2, Rank - 66,^(;PA - 8.8, Caste - BC-D^(Wome r), Serial No. 67 Revised in List.

¶25

Peraboina Rr dhika D/o- Peraboina Rangaiah, Date of^{Bilh: 04-07 -2000} (21 years, 1 mon hs, 27 days as on 3'1-08-2021) Application l'lo - 15, Rank - 76 cPA - 7.0, C rste - BC-D^(Women), Serial^{No, 77 in Revised List.}

¶26

(Respondent No.2 to 4 are the C/o. Sri Konda Laxman Telanqana State Horticlture Ur iversity, Mulugu (Village & Mandal), Siddipet Distri.t,^Telangana -^502279.

¶27

¶28

...RESPONDENTS/ PROPOSED RESPONDENTS No. 2 to 4

¶29

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to receive the documents i.e. (1) the Off line Application of the Petitioner, (2) the Offline Application of one Are Arun Kumar, (3) the Provisional Selection for Diploma in Horticulture Course and Allotment Letter dated 15-02-2022, (4) lhe Revised Tentative Merit List for Diploma in Horticulture - 2021-22, as lhe Additional Material Papers in this Writ Petition, pending the above Writ Petition.

¶30

lA NO; 3 OF 2022

¶31

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to implead the Proposed Respondents No. 2 to 4, as the Respondents No. 2 to 4 in the Writ Petition, pending the above Writ Petition.

¶32

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CHANDRAIAH SUNKARA

¶33

Counsel for the Respondents: SMT K. UDAYA SRI

¶34

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶35

THE H SNOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.RADHA. RAI{II

¶36

w.P. No.8135 of 2o22

¶37

ORDER:-

¶38

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitionr:r to issue a Writ of Mant amus' declaring the action of the Rr:spondent in disqualifying the petitioner and the candidates who passed Intermediate rr Higher studies as ineligible for ap clying to the Horticulture I riploma Course for the Academic year 2O2l_22, in Clause-1(b) c I the Notification dated 02.12.2021, inspite of striking down the similar Clause-1-B in the Notifications dated 26.O7 .2017 a: d, 17.O9.2020 and prescribing the upper age limit of 22 years as on 31.08.2021 in Clause-3 of the sairj Notification d,ated 02.12.2 )21, as arbitrary, illegal and vioiative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) rnd 21 of the Constitution of India and to direct the Responder rt to accept the petitioner,s online application for Horticulture t iploma Course and consider her candidature for admission int, , Horticulture Diploma Course for thLe Academic year 2027-22, basing on her merit and her BC-D Social Status without referer ce to her age and pass in Intermediat,: Course.

¶39

Heard t re learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counst I for the Respondent.

¶40

¶41

¶42

DT.GRR,J W.P.No.8135 2022

¶43

The learned counsel^{for the petitioner submitted that the} petitioner was a resident of^{Salapally Village, Pegadapalle} Mandal, Jagitial District^{and she belonged to an agricultural} family. She studied^{her school education from I Class to X class} in Rural area at^{Pegadapalieand GollapallyMandals' She} passed X class in March^{2011.The petitioner was very much} interested to do^{any coursein agriculture allied subjects and to} serve farmers of^her area'^{She wasintersted to do Diploma in} Horticulture.^{The above said Diplomacourse was useful to-her} for her further^{career plan for growing Nurseries,Orchids and} other Horticulture^{crops and for self-employmentand for} transfer of techniques^{to the farming communities inher} surrounding rural^{area farmers'The Respondent-Universityvide} its Admission Notilication^{No.02lAdmissions/Diplomal20lT'} d,aled. 26.07.2017,^{invited applications from all the candidates} in Telangana for^{admission into Diploma in HorticultureCourse} in the Government^{of HorticulturePolytechniccolleges that were} located in the region^{of Sri Konda Laxman T'S'Horticultural} University, Rajendranagar,^{TelanganaState' As per the said} Notification, one should^{have studiedschool education from I} Class to X Class^{in rural area or should have atleast four} consecutive^{years of study in any schoollocated in rural areas} and one should^{be in the dle'between15 to 25 years as on}

// /

,/, / /</

D-.GRR,J U/.P.No.8135 2022

¶48

3 1 .08.2017 and must pass X Class examinurtion or any equivalent e <amination with Grade point Aver:rge of 5.0 if belonged to general or BC category. But those who possess Intermediate and above Educational qualification, were not eligible for rpplying for admission into Diplonra course in Horticulture being conducted by Sri Konda Laxman T.S. Horticultural University, Rajendra Nagar, Telangana State.

¶49

Aggrier ed by the said condition/quali.lication, the petitioner fi ed W.P.No.2ZTZ7 of 2OlT . She also filed W.P.lto.2225 ) of 2O2O questioning the similar qualification Clause of tht Notification for the Academic year 2e2O_2L Both the said Wri . Petitions were partly allowed by ct>mmon order dated 26.02.: O21 holding as follows:

¶50

'^rn the light of the aboue d.isanssion, ttte clau: e 1-B in tLrc impugned notification restrainin g the Intermediate qualifi.ed candid.ates from purs ing Diploma in Horticulture Course being incot sistent uith Articles la, 19(1)9 and 21 of Con:'.itution of India, the same is liable to be stntr c dotun and is accordingly struck dou.trt.

¶51

l,^rith respect to creation of supernumerary seat, as d scussed in the preceding paragraphs, in ui<:ut of tl z submission made bg the Leamed Senior Coun sel for Respondent-tlniuersitg that the sectts for^{tL z Diploma} in Hortia.Llture course haue alrearTy

¶52

¶53

DT.GRR,J W. P.^N o.813^{5-202 2}

¶54

been fitled,^{and thereis no uacancg in the present} Academic^{gear and} further^{keeping in uietu the} jud.gment of the Hon'ble^{Supreme Court in Dental} Council of India,^{no direction can be giuen for}

¶55

creation of^{supernumeraryseat for the petitioner'"}

¶56

The learned^{counselfor the petitionerfurther submitted} that the copy^{of the said order was dispatched on 23'04'2021'} But the Respondent-University^{issued the impugned Notification} dated 02.12.2021^{again prescribingthe sameconditionthat the}

¶57

candiiates^{whopassed Intermediateor Higher studies were not} eligible for^{admissioninto Diploma in Horticulture Programme} fortheAcademicyear2o2l-22.Withregardtotheage,itwas specilied that^{the candidateswho intendto join the Diploma} Course should^{be between 15 to 22 years of age as on} 31.08.2021.

¶58

The learned^{counselfor the petitionerfurthercontended} thatnoagerelaxationwasproviedtoSC(ScheduledCaste),ST (Scheduled Tribe)^{and BC (BackwardClass)candidatesin the} Notification.^{The petitionerhad submittedheronline} application^{on 19.O1.2022by making payment of the prescribed} fee of Rs.11OO/-^{on 17.O1.2O22with her correct Date of Birth'} but the same^{was not accepted by the computer' As such' the}

¶59

¶60

¶61

Dr.G RR,J Vr'.P.No.8135 2022

¶62

petitioner m rde her online application by enterin g her date of birth as 01.)9.1999 though her actual date of birth was on 26.02.1996. The petitioner,s Grade points were 9.2 cpA. As there were 120 seats, the petititoner was expecting her admission b:.sed on her merit and her ,BC_D, socizrl status. But her applicar ion was not considered in view of the illegal conditions r rentioned by the respondent in th,: Notilication dated O2.12,2021. As such, the petitioner was constrained to file the prese lt Writ petition.

¶63

The R :spondent-Universit5r filed counter i:e I.A.No.1 of 2022 fiM fo^. suspension of the impugned Clauses with regard to qualificati,,n and age in the guidelines issued pLrrsuant to the Notifrcation lated 02.12.202 I and orally reported to consider the same as iled in the main Writ petition.

¶64

The l, arned counsel for the Responde.nt_Universit5r contended tl at as per clause 15 0f the Notificzrtion, all the admissions i rto the Courses were treated as prcvisional. The admission r t the candidates would be cancelled if the information urnished by the Candidates/ parents/ Guardians, was found t( be not correct at any time. In the application uploaded by the petitioner, against the Date of Elirth corumn, she entered the date as 01.O9.1999 and her age as on 31.O8.2O2I e s 23 years. Since the date of uploa,i was within

rrr'.itir---_

DT.GRR,J W.P.No.8135 2022

¶69

the prescribed^parameters of^{the Notilication, the online} application was^processed through'^{However, on verilication of} the Secondary School Certil-rcate^{which was alreadyuploaded} along with the application^{form, her date of birth was recorded} as 26.02.1996 which was^{in variance to the date entered against} the column- Date of Birth.^{Thus, the information furnished in} the online application form^{was false andincorrect.} Accordingly, her application^{was rejected in terms of Clause -15} of the Admission Notilication.^{Having furnished incorrect} information in the uploaded^{online application form, the} petitioner chose to challenge the^{Clause/Conditionsprescribed} in the Notification at the^{belatedlength of time which was} impermissible and^prayed to^{dismiss the petition.}

¶70

Perused the record.

¶71

As the record would disclose^{that the petitionerhad} submitted the online application^{lorm with incorrect date of} birth as 01.09.1999, which^{was in variance with the date of} birth recorded in the Secondary^{School Certificate as} 26.O2.t996, which was^{admitted by the petitionerherselfin her} affidavit and as the^{petitioner deliberately furnishedfalse} information, she is not^{entitledto seek the equitablereiief by} invoking the extraordinary^{jurisdiction underArticle226 of the} Constitution of India.

¶72

¶73

¶74

l)r.GRR,j W.P.No.8135 2022

¶75

1 1. The V rit petitioner was aware of the conditions prescribed in the Notifi :ation for admission into the Diploma course for the Academic y^.ar 2O2l_22. Having understood the details of the Notification, she should have approached this Cc,urt before the last date for receipt of applications i.e. on rg.or.?,o22. But, on the other he nd, after furnishing the incorrect information in the uploaded or line application form, she chose to challenge the Clauses/Cor ditions prescribed in the No tification on 13.O2.2022 relatedly. Hence, it is considered fit r:o dismiss the Writ ?etitior as the petitioner had not approached this Court with clean h .nds.

¶76

Accorc :ngly, the Writ petition is dismissed. ,lhere shall be no order as t ) costs

¶77

Miscell tneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, sha. stand closed.

¶78

¶79

SD/.K.SRINIVASA RAO JOIN REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 1 SE"r,ffiFFICER One CC to iRt CHANDRATAH SUNKARA Advocate [OpUC] 2 One CC to ;MT K. UDAYA SRt Advocate IOPUC] Two CD Cc lies.

To,

4 One spare r opy.

NPJ

HIGH GOUF T

DATED:01lt 412022

ORDER

L STAr€
1
qA.
tI 4 lut{ 2[2
oo
* ) F

¶88

WP.No.813,i of 2022

¶89

DISMISSIN i THE WRIT PETTTION WITHOUT^(:OSTS.

¶90

lzf )

Boddu Manisha, v. Sri Konda Laxman Telangana State Horticulture University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Boddu Manisha, v. Sri Konda Laxman Telangana State Horticulture University

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

M/S.Sam E-Commerce India Private Limited Vs The Union of India

M/s. S.R. Mining Industries Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Sri Ananthapuram Raghuvaran Vs The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Devender Reddy Vanavasam Vs Union of India

Bhatta Chandrashekar Vs Board of Secondary Education

M/s.Telangana Southern Power Distribution Company Limited Vs The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner