Disposed

M. Lakshmi Chaithanya v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Feb 2025WP/3576/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking registration for PG-Medical admission under NRI quota for 2024-25 after the petitioner missed the initial registration window. Court permitted filing of a representation before the university, which was directed to decide it by a reasoned order before the next counselling.

What did the court decide?

Permission to file representation to respondent No.2 with a direction to consider and decide it by reasoned order before the next counselling.

M. Lakshmi Chaithanya Vs The State of Telangana — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

,N THE HIGH COURJ

¶2

t0I .,;,dil,ffffiE.H:,,;TELANGANA

¶3

?.,F^{"',ffi8+1"U.1ruX,S1,r,,:nl[ilf} ^" rHE HONOURABLE rHE r

¶4

rHEHoNouRAraa^-".-'S!"HlEFJUsr'cEsuJoYPA,L SIIIT. JUSilCE RENUKA YARA

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

Between: n IT PETITloN NO:3 76 F 2 25

¶7

$,:ffijffi ;f,f^{r!t#i;H,.l',ffi} i,.=""f +#nfi ,f^{u^r'ito,.6^.8:?rl}

¶8

AND ...PETITIONER

¶9

;[i,3fH?#i,#i,,tr*Flfr H{*trtiis,ifl :i[i,,llyi.+"Bi:irsr1,

¶10

...RESPONDENTS

¶11

Petition under Articre 226 0f 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 ,or" prrti.rlrrf, on"ln tn" nature of writ of mandamus decraring the action of the respondents particurarry the 2nd respondent in not considering the petitioner for registration for admission into PG-Medical course for the academic year 2024-2s under Management euota category 2 (NRr) for next phase of counseiling and subsequent phase of counsefling as iflegar, arbitrary, unconstitutionar and consequenfly direct the respondents to consider the petitioner request for registration for admission into PG-Medical course under Management euota category 2 (NRl) in next phase of counsefiing and subsequent phases of counselring for the academ ic year 2024_25.

¶12

lA NO: 't oF 2025

¶13

Petition under section 151 cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct \hg.2n(\gsQonden\oconsrdetthepet$onerrequesttorres\strattontor

¶14

admissionntoPG-Medi':ar;5::;T:Ir11t"-T::::::::::::l':JII[: Next^{second on*"} "].":""a.n i**, of^{the writ petition'} academic^{Yea r 2O24-25P'}

¶15

i::;:t"l'lil:ih""fi^{Ti'It" i".l[k*'",*':'lut[$J']1.'}

¶16

The^{courtmade the following:ORDER}

¶17

I t

¶18

THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL

¶19

AND

¶20

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

¶21

WRTT PETITION No. 3576 0F 2025

¶22

OR.DER: (Per the Hon'bLe the Acting Chief Justice Sujog paul)

¶23

Sri L.Ram Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T. Sharath, learned Standing Counsel for Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences, for respondent No.2.

¶24

Heard on admission.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner got registered herself for Management euota but could not register for NRI Quota because she was not in possession of NRI documents at that point of time. He submits that the petitioner will prefer a representation before respondent No.2 tomorrow i.e., 07.O2.2O25 and the said authority may be directed to consider it and take a decision before the next counselling.

¶26

Learned Standing counsel for respondent No.2 has no objection to this innocuous prayer.

¶27

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to {ile such representation along with relevant documents before respondent No.2. In turn, respondent No.2

¶28

¶29

shall consider and decide such representation,

¶30

in accordance with law, by passing a reasoned order before the

¶31

next counseling. It is made clear that this Court has not

¶32

expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. No costs.

¶33

Interlocutory ;lpplications, if any pending, shall also stand

¶34

closed.

¶35

SD/- A.SRINIVA SA REDDY ASSIST EGISTRAR

¶36

/ITRUE COPY/' s CTION OFFI^CER

¶37

¶38

The Principal^{Secretary, Medicaland Health Family Welfare- pepartment'} ' $;t;6iiai-B-rlru.g", irvti"ouio' state of relangana^{-500 055}

¶39

ffi ' R&lliri iiiidii'r.rr'riiivrni'n"o U niversitv bf Health Sciences' Waranoal.

¶40

s b';; CB to sRl^{L.RAMslNGH, Advocate [oP.UC].} 4. ' Two ccs^{to Gp FOR M'ED'[A[rieni?H'a rw, 'High court tor the State of} Telanqana,^{at HYderabad'[OUT]}

¶41

1. oi."ic'i;'^{dni i-s-i[nari,sc ron KNRUHS[oPUC]}

¶42

Two CD^CoPies

PSK PSK

CC TODAY

HIGH COURT

DATED:0610212025

ORDER

WP.No.3576 of 2025

S IATA
4.
(( )'
.Y 7
C)
0 b i[ r, ?t?i .tt
a:'
ti.,:.1,-
I , - '.,,-11,7!ir:'

¶50

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT^PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶51

M. Lakshmi Chaithanya v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Lakshmi Chaithanya 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

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S. Yadagiri Vs The Regional Director

Sri Narayana Sambarapu Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Iris Meditech Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Coppertaurus Technologies (India) Private Limited Vs The Appellate Joint Commissioner(St)

Gouru Venkateshwarlu Vs Gouru Ramesh

Pittala Naresh Vs The State of Telangana