Disposed

Ananya Manchikatla v. Kaloji Narayana Rao Health University

Telangana HC9 Aug 2023WP/21357/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition seeking directions for re-evaluation of an MBBS answer sheet. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the University's Grievance Committee and submit a representation within one week, in accordance with the University's rules.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to approach the Grievance Committee within one week to make a representation for re-evaluation.

Ananya Manchikatla Vs Kaloji Narayana Rao Health… — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

132521

¶2

HIGH GOURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI^NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 21357 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Ananya Manchikatla, D/o. M. Ramulu, lndian,^{aged 22 years, Occ. Student,Fi/o.} 1-5-AB/1 Crisent road^- 2 Sainikpuri^{Secunderabad.}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Kaloji Narayana Rao Health University, Rep. by^{its Registrar, Warangal,} Telangana.

¶12

Medicity^{lnstitute of Medical Sciences, Ghanpur Medchal mandal anddistrict} Rep by its principal

¶13

The C-ontroller of Examination, Kaloji Narayana Rao^{Health University,} warangal District

¶14

...RE''.NDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^{praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filedtherewith,the High Courtmay be} pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more^particularly oneⁱⁿ the nature of Mandamus, declaring^{the action} of^{the respondents in not re-} evaluating the answer sheet of Humaq anatomy^{of the petitioner afresh,for the} examination held in the month of^June2023 of^{1st yearMBBS coursewith} registration number of 1901 009009 of the^petitioner as^{illegal, null, void and} arbitrary and consequently direct^{the 3rd respondentto re-evaluatethe answer} sheet of the^petitioner by the examiner^afresh

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High Court may be pleased to} direct the respondents to re-evaluate^the answer^{sheet of Human anatomy of the} petitioner afresh, for the examination held in the month of June 2023^{of 1st year}

¶18

lrlBBS course with reqistration number of 1901009009 pending disposal of the writ petition

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. K. DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1&3: SRl. A. PRABHAKAR RAO, SC Counsel for the Respondent No.2: None Appeared The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA P N 2L 7 o2

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, tearned standing counset takes notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 3.

¶23

The prayer as sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition reads as under:

¶24

"to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not re_evaluating the answer sheet of Human anatomy of the petitioner afresh for the examination held in the month of June 2023 of 1't year MBBS course with registration number o1' 1901009009 of the petitioner respectively as illegal, null, void and arbitrary and consequently, direct the 3.d respondent to re-evaluate the answer sheet oF the petitioner by the examiner afresh.

¶25

3' According to sri A.prabhakar Rao, rearned standing counser appearing for respondent Nos.l and 3, there is no provision for revaluation of paper as per the Regulations of the 1't respondent University and it the petitioner is having any grievance, he has to approach the Grievance committee

¶26

)

¶27

appointed^{by the 1't respondentUniversity for the purpose of} re-totaling^{as per requisite fee and as per the Rule' The said} Grievance^{Committeeis havingliberiy to verify the papers} physicallY.

¶28

In^{view ofthesaid submission oflearned} universitY,^Sri for 1't^resPondent standing^counsel the Petitioner learned^{counsel for} K.Durga^Prasad, seeks^{disposalof the writ petition by granting liberty to} the^{petitionertoapproach the saidGrievance} Committee^{and to make a representation'}

¶29

5.^{Inview of the submissionof both learned counsel on} record,^{the Writ petition is disposed of grariting libertyto the} petitioner^{tomake arepresentation tothe Grievance} Committee^{appointed by the lst respondentUniversity' within} a^{period of one (01) week from the date of receipt of the copy} of this^{order and thereafter'on receipt ofthe said} representation^{tobe submitted by the petitionerthe} Grievance^{Committeeshall considerthe same' in accordance} to law,^{within a Period ofone(01)week , as Per the rules and} Regulations^{of the l'tRespondentUniversity' in force as on}

¶30

¶31

date and^{pass appropriate orders duly communicatingthe} decision to^{the petitioner.However,there shall be no order}

¶32

as to costs.

¶33

Miscellaneous^{petitions,if any, pendingshall also stand}

¶34

closed.

¶35

SD/.P.^{GOWRI SHANKAR} ASSISTANT^REGIS

//TRUE^COPY//

SECTION FFTCER

To,

iIi:ff S853i,fi3i:lJ]ililfr^{X3:?i,!33:i""?:lT;lYbHifil'n'ft !o'S3i'n'""} mandal^{and district} ration' Kaloji Narayana Rao Health university'

¶40

3 The Controller^{ot bxamtr}

¶41

, H:tg1'"",ltJ8l'"uun""^{committee of Kaloii NaravanaRao Health}

¶42

iglitE'iitd#]#34'ffi^{'s^%$si,t",J3%%?*"',o'u'}

¶43

fwo^{CD CoPies}

¶44

oj^,*

I I i

HIGH COURT

DATED:0910812023

aa=::::-jii:-:; .i lA,'ii ,;r.'.r,
.)' .'r. \ \i)ir
-J ,i
;,1
., ]
rus $a
11

¶49

ORDER

¶50

WP.No.21357 of²⁰²³

¶51

DISPOSING OF THE^{WRIT PETITION} WTTHOUT COSTS

Ananya Manchikatla v. Kaloji Narayana Rao Health University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ananya Manchikatla v. Kaloji Narayana Rao Health 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

Danda Santhosh Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company Tg Ltd.

M/S. Gilpra Infra Private Limited Vs Telangana State Southern Power Distribution, Corporation Limited

Paranandi Sanjeeva Rao Vs The Registrar Osmania University

Guduru Narender Reddy Vs The Chairman and Managing Director

Dr. Aruna Vs State of Telangana

Saanvi Developers Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana State Ltd.