Disposed

Thodeti Kavya Sri v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Oct 2025WP/30730/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A medical admission aspirant who missed exercising web options in the first phase sought a direction to be allowed participation in the next counselling round for BDS under 'B' category Management Quota. The University offered to consider a representation; the court disposed of the petition permitting her to make one.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to make representation to respondent No.2-University, which shall consider it in accordance with law within two days; if permitted, consideration in mop-up round unfilled seats.

Thodeti Kavya Sri Vs The State of Telangana — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³⁴⁸⁸ ]

¶2

.IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (Special Ori^gi nal JuriSdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TENTH^{DAY OF OCTOBER} TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENTYFIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE THE^{CHIEF JUSTICEAPARESH KUMAR SINGH} AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{G. M. MOHIUDDIN}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO^{: 30730 OF 2025}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Thodeti Kavya Sri,^{D/o Thodeti Ravi Kumar.aged about 21 years, Occ} SildJi rirc'i+.No.O.t'lo.M-62,^{Workers Colony. Ramagundem,Peddapalli} Dist

¶9

...PETtrtoNER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 . The State of Telangana . reoresented bv its Principal^{Secretary,Medicaland} Health Family Welfare, beriartment. Secretariat^{Buildings, Hyderabad} 2. Kaloii NararaYana^Rao University of Health^{Sciences, Representedby its} Registrar, Warangal ...RESPqXqENTS _ Peftion utdeiTrticle of-the Constitrrtion of^tndia [raying^{that in the} - circumstances stated^{in the} -226^{affidavit filedtherewith, the High court may be} pleased to issue a writ order^{or Direction particularlyone in the nature of writ of} mandamus declaring^{the action of the respondents particularlythe 2nd} respondent in^{not consideringthe petitioner request for exercisethe web options} for the. ongoing/next^{phase of counseling,for - admission/counselinginto} undergraduate Courses^{i.e., MBBS/BDS, for academic year 2025-2026'under 'B'} category Management^{Quota for ongoing/next phase of counseling, for admission} into MBBS/BDS, Course,^{as illegal, arbitrary,unconstitutionaland consequently} direct the respondents^{to consider andpermit the petitioner requestto exercise} the web options for^{theongoing/next phase ofcounselingfor} admission/counseling^{into undergraduatecoursesMBBS/BDS, for academic year} 2025-2026, under^{B Category Management Quota}

¶12

IANO:1OF^2O25

¶13

Petition under Section^{151 CPC praying thatin the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition, the Highcourt maybe pleasedto} direct the^{2nd respondent to considerthe petitioner requestto permit her to}

¶14

I r

¶15

f.'ffiI"!rn

¶16

exercise the web options for the ongoing/next phase of counseling, for ad miss ion/coun se ling into undergraduate courses i.e., MBBS/BDS for academic year 2025-2025, under "B" category f\4anagement Quota for ongoing/next phase :of: counseling, Pernding Disposal of the Writ petition Counsel for the P etitioner: SRI B. OM PRAKASH YADAV

¶17

¶18

Counsel for Respondent No. 1: SRI TANDRA RAMESH, AGP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE Counsel for Respondent No. 2: SRI T. SHARATH, SC FOR KALOJI NARAYANA RAO UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES

¶19

¶20

The Court made the following; ORDER

¶21

THE IION-BLE^{TIIE CHIEF'}

¶22

¶23

AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTI^{CE G.M.MOHII]DDIN}

¶24

WRIT PETITI^{ON No.3O730of2025}

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

Sri B. Om^{Prakash Yadav, Iearned counselappears} for the^petitioner.

¶27

Sri Tandra^{Ramesh,learned AssistantGoverrrment} Pleader for^{Health, Medical andFamily Welfare}

¶28

Sri T.Sharath,^{learned Standing Counselfor Kaloji} Narayana Rao^{Universityof Health Sciences (hereinafter} referred to^{as, "the University")'appears for iespondent} No.2.

¶29

This writ peution^{has been filed by the petitioner} seeking a direction^{to the respondents to permit her to} exercise web option^{for admission into undergraduate} courses i.e.,^{MBBS/BDSunder ManagementQuota "B"} category for the^{academic yeau. 2025-2026 in the next} phase of counselling.

¶30

¶31

The case of the petitioner is that she had only registere,l under^,,A', category. However, due to lack of knowledge, she could not exercise web option in the first phase of counselling, for admission into BDS course under "8" category for the academic year 2025_26 before 2:00 p.nr. on 24.09.2C.25 in terms of the notification dated 22.09.2025.

¶32

4 karned Standing Counsel for the University has referred to the notification dated 22.09.2025. It is submittecl that the note and instructions to the candidates, categorically specify that the candidates in the final merit list, who Co not exercise web opfions in the first phase of counsellir:.g, shall not be eligible to exercise web options in the subs,:quent phase of counselling to prevent seat blocking. Petitioner is one such candidate, who has not exercised her web options in the first round of counselling nor has opted for admission into BDS course under ..B,, category.^."vhereafter she could avail the remaining seats under 'CINRI' quota. He submits that the corrigendum dated 04.lO.2O2S and 06.1O.202S permits fresh

t I

I I

:i li,

fegistratloh=^{-only EsucfcandfietrS;who hatl-exercisecl} web options.^{Therefore' the petitioner does not fit in the} said category.^{He, however,submitS that if the petiuoner} makes a representation,^{the University would consider it in} accordance^{with law}

¶39

Having considered^{thesubmissions oflearned} counsel for the^{petitioneras also the learned Standing} counsel for Universi{y^{and having regard to the above facts} and circumstances,^{petiUoneris allowed liberty to make a} representation^before respondent No.2-UniversitYⁱⁿ respect of her^claim for exercise of web^{oPtions for} admission into^{BDS course, for the academicyeax 2025-26} under^"B" category'^{On receipt of such representation'the} University would^{considerthe same in accordance with law} within a^period of^{two daYs.}

¶40

If the University^{allows the petitioner to exerciseher} web options, her^{case shall be considered in the unfilled} seats in the moP-uP^round.

¶41

¶42

i I

¶43

7: Lef it tre made clear that we ave no arIT opinion on the merits of the case.

¶44

Accordingly, the writ petifion is disposed of. There shall be no order as lo costs.

¶45

Mis<:ellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand clos,ed.

¶46

SD/-MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUW REGISTRAR

¶47

//TRUE COPYII G- SECTION OFFIGER

¶48

To, 1 . The Principal Secretary, Medical and Health Family Welfare Department, State_of Tela n ga na Selretariat BuitOings, HVOerabld' 2 . The Registrar Kaloji Nararayana Rao^{"Univ6rsity;iiealth} Sciences, Wa ranga I 4J. . One Two CCs CC to to Sri Gp B For lvledicat Heatrh & Om prakash yadav Advocate [OpUC]ramily w'eltaL, hign court for the state of Telangana. [OUTI 5. one cc to sri r. Sharath, SC for Karoji Narayana Rao University of Hearth Sciences^(OP,JC) b.. Two CD iopies IVBC GJP

¶49

HIGH COURT

¶50

DATED: 10IL0L2O25

¶51

:: ''--
;- () I - t_,-:t 't::. r', . )-,, .:,, ,.i
,' .S
t+'!l
u_ $ ;firi
+ i't!
li.i +

¶52

ORDER

¶53

WP.No.30730 of 2025

¶54

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶55

WITHOUT COSTS

Thodeti Kavya Sri v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thodeti Kavya Sri 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

Sabhavat Vamshi Vs The State of Telangana

Baddipudi Neha Das, Vs The State of Telangana

G. Ananya Vs The State of Telangana

M/s Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs and Central Tax (Appeals - I)

M/s.Aditya and Co., Vs The Union of India

Harshitha Nandikanti Vs The State of Telangana