Disposed

Mekala Harshitha v. the State of Telangana

Telangana HC22 Jan 2025WP/1557/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought registration under revised NEET-PG cut-off for PG medical admission via a writ of mandamus. Her representation to respondent No.2 was pending; court directed resubmission and disposal by the university within seven days.

What did the court decide?

Direction to re-submit representation to respondent No.2 for decision expeditiously, preferably within seven days; no costs; pending IAs closed.

Mekala Harshitha Vs the State of Telangana — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

13437 1

¶3

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

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENry SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHTEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTIGE G.RADHA RANI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO:15 57 0F 2025

¶8

Between: i

¶9

Mekala Harshitha, D/o. -Late Mekala Ashok Reddy, Age_ 29 years, Occ_ student, R/o H. No.3-12-a+i1,Ftii-No.'Ioi,' snrenits Nest, Mansoorabad, Rock Hills Colony, L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy bistrict_SOOOOe

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State Of Telangana, Be.p by its.principal Secretary, Medical and Health Famirv werrare oeplrtmeint, seiietariai e;iriid;-Hvoe?iuio - sto oss.'"-'"'

¶13

Kaloji .Nararayana Rao University of Hearth sciences, Represented by its Registrar, Waiangal

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Articre 226 of rhe constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or Direction, more particurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus decraring the action of the Respondents particularly the 2nd Respondent in not considering the petitioner request through email dated 13.01 .202s and registered post dated 14.o1 .202s to permit ailow to register for revised NEET-PG cut-off score for admission into post Graduate Medical course for the academic year 2o24-2025 under Management euota in affiliated Private Medicar colleges in the State of relangana as arbitrary, illegar, unjust and unconstitutional consequenfly direct the 2nd Respondent to consider the case of the Petitioner for admission into pG counselling Registration for the academ ic year 2024-202i.

¶16

IA NO:^'t OF 2025

¶17

PetitionunderSectionlslCPcprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated in the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition,the High Court may be pleasedto} direct the 2nd^{Respondentto considerthe petitioner's request in consideringto} register for revised^{NEET-PG cut-off score for admissioninto Post Graduate} Medical courses^{foi the academic year 2024-2025 under Management Quotain} affiliated Private^{Medical Colleges in the Stateof Telangana, pending disposalof} Writ Petition.

¶18

Counsel for the^{Petitioner:M/s. P.VIJAYA LAKSHMI}

¶19

Counsel for the^{Respondent No.'l: SRI R.f'IAGARJUNA REDDY,} AGP FOR MEDICAL^{HEALTH FW}

¶20

Counsel for the^{Respondent No'2: SRI T.SHARATH, SC FOR KNRUHS}

¶21

The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

I /

THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶27

AND

¶28

THE HON'BLE DT. JUSTICE G. RA"DHA RANI

¶29

WRIT PETITION No.1557 of 2or25

¶30

ORDER (Per Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice)

¶31

Ms. P. Vijaya Lakshmi, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri R. Nagarjuna Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department, for respondent No. 1 and Sri T. Sharath, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶32

l,earned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the present grievarrce, the petitioner has already preferred a representation dated 13.07.2025 before respondent No.2 which is pending consideration. The said respondent may be directed to decide the said representation expeditiously.

¶33

The other side has no objection.

¶34

The Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to re-submit the a-foresaid representation, along with copy of this order, before respondent No.2. In turn, respondent No.2 shall consider and decide such representation expeditiously, preferably, within a period of seven days from the date of frling of said representation. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. No costs.

¶35

I .t

¶36

¶37

Interlocutory applications,^{if any pending,shalialso stand}

¶38

closed.

¶39

SD/.K.AMMAJI ,,2 ASSISTANT REGISTfIAR^. //TRUE GOPY// r/ SECTION OFFICER

¶40

¶41

To,

¶42

The Principal Secretary,^{Medical and H-e€lth Family} -W^elfare^Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hlderabad,^{State Of Telangana- 500 055.}

¶43

The Registrar, Kaloji^{NararayanaRao Universityof Health Sciences,} Warangal

¶44

One CC to M/s.^{P.VIJAYA LAKSHMIi Advocate} [OPUC]

¶45

One CC to SRI T.SHARATH,^{SC FOR KNRUHS} IOPUCI

¶46

Two CCs to GP^{FOR MEDICAL HEALTH FW, High Courtfor the State of} I

¶47

Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI

¶48

Two CD Copies

BSR

CC TODAY

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2210112025

ORDER

-rflE STAle
A
o
t- '(i,Z
q zz JAt ziffi -h.

¶55

WP.No.1557 of²⁰²⁵

¶56

DISPOSING OF^{THE WRIT PETITION,}

¶57

WITHOUT COSTS

¶58

t w

Mekala Harshitha v. the State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mekala Harshitha 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

Deepak Nagori Vs Income Tax Officer

C. Latha Vs The State of Telangana

B Shivaji, Hyd Vs R. Naga Raju, Hyd and Another

D. Bala Mallaiah, Vs The State of Telangana

Sved Basheer Ahmed Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Sangameshwara Rice Mill Vs The Telangana Pollution Control Board