Dr.Buggaveedi Prathyusha v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC27 Jan 2025WP/2075/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PG Medical admissions 2024-25; NRI/Institutional Quota; KNRUHS counseling; writ of Mandamus; Article 226 Constitution of India; representation dated 22.01.2025; direction to decide representation within seven working days; disposed of without expressing opinion on merits; no costs; Telangana High Court; Dr. Buggaveedi Prathyusha v. State of Telangana and Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.2 (KNRUHS) to take a decision in accordance with law on the petitioner's pending representation dated 22.01.2025, expeditiously and preferably within seven working days from communication of the order; no costs; pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand closed. ¶¶32

Dr.Buggaveedi Prathyusha Vs State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of the Respondents, particularly Respondent No.2, in not considering the Petitioner for counseling and admissions into PG Medical Courses under NRI/Institutional Quota for the academic year 2024-25 was illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, and whether the Petitioner should be included in the next round of counseling.

¶¶14

Court's answer

The Writ Petition is disposed of by directing respondent No.2 to take a decision in accordance with law on the petitioner's pending representation expeditiously, preferably within seven working days from the date of communication of the copy of the order.

¶¶32

Key takeaways

The Court made clear that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.obiter¶¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 2075 of 2025 (High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad; Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Smt Justice Renuka Yara; order per the Acting Chief Justice; 27.01.2025): The petitioner, a student aged about 32 years, filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional the action of the Respondents, particularly Respondent No.2 (Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences), in not considering her for counseling and admissions into PG Medical Courses under the NRI/Institutional Quota for the academic year 2024-25, and seeking inclusion of her name in the next round of counseling. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a representation dated 22.01.2025 was already pending before respondent No.2 and prayed that it be considered expeditiously; the other side had no objection. The Court disposed of the Writ Petition directing respondent No.2 to take a decision in accordance with law on the pending representation expeditiously, preferably within seven working days from the date of communication of the copy of the order, making clear that no opinion was expressed on the merits. No costs; pending interlocutory applications were directed to stand closed.

¶1

[³⁴⁴⁶ ]

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY^PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 207s OF 202s

¶7

Between:

¶8

Dr.Buqqaveedi Prathyusha, D/o Buggaveedi^{Venkateswarly, Age about 32} years,"6cc- Student,H.No.10-3-623/5-,-Meher Nagar, Karimnagar, Telangana505 001

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 State of Telangana, rep by its Principal Secretary,^{Department of Health and} Medical and Family Welfare, Secretariat,^Hyderabad

¶12

2 Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health^{Sciences, Represented by its} Registrar, Warangal

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

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 any appropriate writ, order or direction, one more^{partlcularlyin} the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the^{action of the Respondents,} particularly Respondent No.2, in not considering the Petitioner^{for counselingand} admissions into PG Medical Courses^{underNRI/InstitutionalQuota for the} academic^year 2024-25 as illegal, arbitrary,^{unconstitutional and consequently} direct the Respondents to consider^{and include the name of the Petitioner in the} next round of counseling and^{admissioninto the PG Medical Coursesunder} NRI/lnstitutional Quota for the academic^{year 2024-25.}

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶16

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}

¶17

ISSUC interim directions directing the 2nd Respondent to consider the Petitioner' , under NRI/Institutional Quota in the counseling and admission into the PG Medical Courses for the academic year 2024-25 for next round of Counseling, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRINIVASA RAO PACHWA

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI T. ANDRA RAMESH, ASST. GP FOR MEDICAL, HEALTH & FW

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI T. SHARATH, SC FOR KNRUHS

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

;

¶23

THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIET"IUSTICE SUJOY PAI'L

¶24

AND

¶25

THE IION'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENI'XA YARA

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.2O75 of 2025

¶27

ORDER (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice)

¶28

¶29

Sri Srinivas Rao Pachwa, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri T. Andra Ramesh, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Health and Family Welfare Department, for respondent No. 1 and Sri T. Sharath, learned Standing Counsel for Kploj i Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences, for respondent No.2.

¶30

l,earned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the present grievance, the petitioner has already preferred a representation dated 22.01.2025 before respondent No.2, which may be directed to be considered expeditiously.

¶31

The other side has no objection to this innocuous prayer.

¶32

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of by directing respondent No.2 to take a decision in accordance with law on the pending representation of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably, within seven working days from the date of communication of copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed aly opinion on the merits of the case. No costs. I I

¶33

¶34

Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand

¶35

closed.

¶36

SD/- N.^SRIHARI ASSISTANT^RE\GIFTRAR sEcnoNBFFrcER /

¶37

//TRUE COPY//

¶38

\ to',l. -n" Principal se-cretr ttriHi1,:iEffi,ffim#.n:

¶39