Disposed¶35

Bande Seran Sai v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC31 Jan 2025WP/2767/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court disposes of student's Article 226 petition seeking consideration for PG-Medical (AY 2024-25) registration under Management Quota Category 2 (NRI) in the next/third phase of counselling after missing the NRI registration cut-off for want of documents; KNRUHS Registrar directed to decide the representation by a reasoned order before the next counselling; no opinion expressed on merits; no costs; interlocutory applications closed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to file a representation along with relevant documents before respondent No.2 (KNRUHS); respondent No.2 to consider and decide the representation in accordance with law by passing a reasoned order before the next counselling; pending interlocutory applications to stand closed; no costs. ¶35

Bande Seran Sai Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who registered under the Management Quota but could not register for the NRI Quota before the cut-off date for want of NRI documents, should be considered by respondent No.2 for registration for admission into the PG-Medical course under Management Quota Category 2 (NRI) in the next/third and subsequent phases of counselling for academic year 2024-25.

¶13

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to file a representation along with relevant documents before respondent No.2.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

Respondent No.2 shall consider and decide the petitioner's representation in accordance with law by passing a reasoned order before the next counselling.

¶35

Key takeaways

The Court expressly clarified that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, and the petition is disposed of without costs.ratio¶35
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 2767 of 2025 (High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad; decided 31-01-2025; order per Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul, with Smt. Justice Renuka Yara on the Bench) was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by a student who had registered for Management Quota counselling for PG-Medical admission (academic year 2024-25) but could not register for the NRI Quota (Management Quota Category 2 (NRI)) as he lacked the relevant NRI documents before the cut-off date. Heard on admission, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court disposed of the petition by permitting the petitioner to file a representation with relevant documents before respondent No.2 (Registrar, Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences), who was to consider and decide it in accordance with law by passing a reasoned order before the next counselling; pending interlocutory applications were to stand closed; no costs.

¶1

[³⁴⁴⁶ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATEOF TELAN.GANA AT HYDERABAD} I rr\Jr I vvvr^{! r} ' -'ispeciat original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY,^{THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF J]\rylJARY} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTYFIVE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTTCE SUJOY PAUL} AND THE HoNouRABLE^{ss'ii iusrlcE RENUT(A YARA}

¶6

WRIT P^{ETITIONNO: 27670F 2025}

¶7

Between:

¶8

B a Student, n d e^{S e Fyo. ra n H.No} 9e.', ?3¹⁶ -^2- ru-,110,3/Bv"ilL1tfffi .11.4trt6:,^{tlY.lY:^Y^l} ii",.[T ir$%", ii "^{Ii T't;, 3ifi ,} ilL-r#itr,,^{Hyderanagar' Kukatpally' Hyderabad'}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND,'I::,P;?':,""J,r-'i'3,?Y,.TBi,[T,1f,'""'lilto"3[ii?,IIli!3i fr1l ;':'ili:1Y;^{J:3 9;i1 Sl3} iences,^{rePresented bYits}

¶11

1. Kaloii^Nararayana .Rao^{Universityof Health Sc} Registrar,^Warangal

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

Petition under^{Article 226 of lhe Constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavit filed therewith'the High Courtmay be} pleased to issue^{an appropriatewrit' order or direction more particularly onein} the nature^{of writ of mandamus declaringthe action of the respondents} particularly the^{2nd respondentin not consideringthe petitioner for registration} for admission^{into PG-Medicalcourse for the academicyear2024-25undet} Management^{Quota Category2 (NRl) for nexUthirdphaseof counselingand} subsequent^{phase of counselingas illegal' arbitrary' unconstitutional and} consequently^{direct the respondentsto considerthe petitioner requestfor} registration^{for admissioninto Pc-Medical course under Management Quota} Category 2^{(NRl) in next/third phase of counseling and subsequentphases of} counseling^{for the academic year 2024-25'}

I 1 ! !

i I I I I I

lA NO: 1 o F 2025

Petition undr:r section '151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the 2nd res[rondent to consider the petitioner request for registration for admission into pG-rvedicar course under Management Quota category 2 (NRr) in next/third phase or counsering and subsequent phases of counsering for the academic year 2o2tt_25 pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶18

Counsel for the petitioner: SRI L.RAM SINGH, REp. FOR SRI ANJANAYULU YADANABOYINA

¶19

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI R.NAGARJUNA REDDy, AGP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH FW

¶20

Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: SRt T.SHARATH, SC FOR KNRUHS The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

THE HON'BLE^{THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICESUJOYPAUL}

¶22

AND

¶23

TIIE HON'BLE^{SMT. JUSTICERENI'XAYARA}

¶24

WRIT^{PETITIONNo.2767of2025}

¶25

oRDER(PertheHon'bletheActingChiefJusticeSujogPaul)

¶26

Sri L. Ram^{Singh, learned counsel r6presents Sri Y'} Anjanayrrlu,^{learned counsel for the petitioner' Sri R' Nagarjuna} Reddy, learned^{AssistantGovernment Pleaderfor Medical'Health} and Family^{Welfare Department'forrespondentNo' 1and} Sri T. Sharath,^{learned Starding Counselfor Kaloji Narayana Rao} University^{of HealthSciences, for respondentNo'2'}

¶27

2 Heard on^admission

¶28

L,earned counsel^{for the petitioner submits that the} petitioner^{got registered himself for Management Quota but could} not register^{for NRI} Quota^{because he was not in possession of NRI} documents^{at that pointof time'In other words' the petitioner did} not have^{relevant documents for NRI Quota before cut-off date' He} submits that^{the petitionerwill prefer a representationbefore} respondent^{No.2 tomorrow i.e. Ol'O2'2025 and the said authority} may be directed to^{consider it and take a decision before the next} counselling.

I I

I I

4 Learned counsel for the respondents has no obfection to this innocuouts prayer.

¶35

5 Accordingly, this Writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner. to hle such representation along with reievant documents belore respondent No.2. In turn, respondent No.2 shall consider and clecide such representation in accordance with law by passing a reasoned order before the next counseling. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. No costs.

¶36

Interlo<:utory applications, if any pending, shail also stand

¶37

closed.

¶38