Disposed

Thanda Harini v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC14 Sept 2023WP/25532/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana disposed of a writ petition challenging the University's inaction in resolving an admission quota discrepancy. The Court directed the University to consider the petitioner's representation within two days without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed the University to consider the petitioner's representation within two days from the date of the order without expressing an opinion on the merits.

Thanda Harini Vs The State of Telangana — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

13377 |

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATE OF TELANGANA} , ATHYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH^{DAY OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE^{ALOK ARADHE} AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN^KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 25532 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Thanda Harini, D/o Thanda Ramesh Goud,^{Agedabout 17 years(Minor),} Occ. Studenl, R:/o. 1-131, Kollapadkal, Maheshwaram^{Mandal,K.V.Ranga} Reddy District, T.S.^(Rep. by her Natural Father Thanda^{Ramesh Goud, S/o} Thanda Guruvaiah Goud, aged about 47^yearc, Occ.^{Agriculture, R/o.1-131,} Kollapadkal, Maheshwaram^Mandal, K.V.Ranga^{Reddy District, T.S.)}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,^{Medicaland Health} Services Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

2 Kaloii Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences, Telangana^State, Warangal, Warangal District, Rep. by its Registrar.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Anicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia^{prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,^{the High Court may be} pleased to issue a writ, order or diregtion more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the Respondent^no.2 in^not considering the Petitioner to admit in the Management^quota Category^{B 1st} Phase, since the Petitioner got admission in RVMC College for MBBS Course^at Siddipet, the Respondent no.2 has^given time of^{four (4) days to reportbefore} the said college on or before 02-09-2023 through SMS^{to Petitioner,by paying} requisite fee amount of Rs.40,0001 to the University through Onllne^{mode and} also further directed the Petitioner with all original certificates to^{produce before} the said college, as the Petitioner could not report in stipulated time^{i.e., on} 02-09-2023 due to financial crisis as illegal, arbitrary,^{null and void, and} consequently direct the Respondent no.2 to^provide the admission^{in 1st phase} of Category-B Management Quota or allow the Petitioner in 2nd^{and 3rd Phase} of Counseling in Management Quota.

¶15

lA NO:^'f OF 2023

¶16

Petition under lection 151 CPC praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to direct the Respondent no.2 to provide the admission into II4BBS Course in 1st Phase of Category-B Management Quota or allow the Petitioner in 2nd and 3rd Phase of Counseling il Management Quota for admission into MBBS Course.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitirner: SRI P. NAGESH

¶18

Counsel forthe Resp:ndent No.1: SRI N. PRAVEEN KUMAR, GP FOR MEDICAL, HEALTH & FW

¶19

Counsel for the Resp,rndent No.2: SRI A. PRABHAKAR RAO,^{SC for KALOJI} NARAYANA RAO UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

THE HON'BLE THE CEIEE^{JUSTICEALOK ARADHE}

¶22

AND

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{N.V.SHRAVANKUMAR}

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.25532^{of 2023}

¶25

ORDER;^(Per the^{Hon'bLethe Chief JusticeAlok Aradhe)}

¶26

Mr. P. Nagesh, learned^{counselfor the petitioner}

¶27

Mr. N.Praveen Kumar, learned^{Government Pleader} for Medical, Health and^{FamilyWelfare appears for} respondent No.1.

¶28

Mr. A.Prabhakar Rao, learned^{Standing Counsel for} Kaloji Narayana Rao^{University ofHealthSciences} (hereinafter referred to as 'the^{University') appears for} respondent No.2

¶29

With the consent of the^{parties,the matter is heard} finally.

¶30

The petitioner is an aspirart^{seeking admissionto} MBBS/BDS course in^{the State of Telanganafor the} academic yeal- 2023-24.^{The petitioner has filed this writ} petition for the following^relief:

¶31

¶32

I I I I i I

¶33

"Fr:r thc rcasol.rs stated above, it rs praycd that this Hon'ble^(lourt may bc pleased to issue a writ, order or directior-r more particularly one in the natur(-. of writ of Maldamrrs to declare the inaction of the respondent No.2 in not :onsidering thc petitioner to adn,it in the Managerr ent Quota Category B', 1"t Phase, since the petitior-rer got admission in RVMC College lor MBBS Course a Siddipet, thc respondent No.2 has gr'",en time of four (4) days 10 report belore the sard college on or before O2.O9.20-)3 through SMS ro petitioner, by payir.g requisite fee amor nt of Rs.40.000/- to the Universitl' through Online mrde and also further directed the petitioner with all originrJ certificates to produce before t-Ie siud college, as the pe titioncr could not report in stipulatetl timc i.e., on 02.09 2023 due to fina:rcial crisis as illega1, arbitrary, null ald void, and con sequently direct the t'cspondent No.2 to provide the admission in 1"t phase of rlatcgory-B Management Quota or allow the petitioner in')ft and 3rd phase of :ounscling in Management Quota and pass such other or lurther orders as this Hon'ble Court rnav deems fit and p oper in thc circumstances of the casr: and in interest o' justice."

¶34

The petrtioner was admittedly allotted a seat in RVMC

¶35

College, Sidclipet, in the first round of counselling and was given four days time to report to the College i.e., on or before 02.09.:1023. It is the case of the petitioner that due to the circunrstanccs bel,ond her control, s he could not appear before the RVMC College, Siddipet, zrnd could not report on 02.C9.2023

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has submitted a representation on 06.O9.2023

¶37

¶38

with regard to her grievance to the University and the University be directed to decide the said representation

¶39

Learned Standing Counsel for the University submits that the representation submitted by the petitioner shall be dealt with in accordance with law.

¶40

In view of the aforesaid submission and in the peculiar facts of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the University to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner within two⁽⁰²⁾ days from today. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed aly opinion on the merits of the matter.

¶41

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any,

¶42

stand closed. No order as to costs

¶43

AN SD/-R.KARTHIK ASSISTANT^REGI

¶44

//TRUE^COPY/' SECTION FICER

¶45

To, :ii:{#.,x'iif?ffif Hixti'r$"';ff^{:il::::"::l::L::}

¶46

lffi[r;t".,ffi ;ffiH$[,#l$,i;t5,'r"n::il'x:* 6. Two^{CD CoPies} BN BS s

.t I

CC TODAY

HIGH COURT

DATED:1410912023

ORDER

WP.No.25532 of 2023

'r, ,t S rAf 6:
(
c
i:n
r-l 1r 5EP2B
.4'
r:.
'..;

¶54

DISPOSING CIF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶55

rd)*e& " b--=f"Y'Va

Thanda Harini v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thanda Harini v. The State of Telangana

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

Dr. G.Aravind Kumar Vs Union of India

Mohd. Saleem Ahmed Vs Mohammed Akif Safvan

Mr. G. Ramesh Kumar Vs Union of India

Mr. Ravi Kumar Pulli Vs Iifl Home Finance Ltd.

Sri Marine Narsimlu Vs The State of Telangana

Basani Manish Chandra Vs The State of Telangana