Disposed¶31

Mr .G. Venkata Ajith v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC19 Feb 2025WP/5037/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana HC, WP 5037/2025, order dated 19.02.2025; MQ-2 management quota NRI category admission; NEET-PG 2024 application error; representation dated 17.02.2025; KNRUHS post graduate Medical/Diploma counseling 2024-2025; mandamus under Article 226; Section 151 CPC interlocutory application; direction to decide representation within seven days; writ disposed of without opinion on merits; no costs; counsel D.S.Kishen for petitioner, T.Sharath SC for KNRUHS, GP for Medical Health FW for State.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.2 to take a decision on the petitioner's representation dated 17.02.2025 in accordance with law expeditiously, not beyond seven days; writ petition disposed of without expressing any opinion on merits; no order as to costs; pending interlocutory applications closed. ¶31

Mr .G. Venkata Ajith Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.2 (Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences) should be directed to consider the petitioner's representation seeking admission under Management Quota MQ-2 (NRI category) in the next phase of counseling for post graduate Medical/Diploma courses for academic year 2024-2025.

¶26

Court's answer

Respondent No.2 is directed to take a decision on the petitioner's representation dated 17.02.2025 in accordance with law expeditiously, but not beyond seven days from the date of the order.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is disposed of without expressing any opinion on merits.

¶31

Key takeaways

Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara), by order dated 19.02.2025 in Writ Petition No. 5037 of 2025, disposed of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by a doctor who, though eligible for Management Quota MQ-2 (NRI category), had erroneously not selected that option in his NEET-PG 2024 application and had made a representation dated 17.02.2025 to KNRUHS (respondent No.2) seeking admission under MQ-2 to post graduate Medical/Diploma courses for academic year 2024-2025 in the next phase of counseling. Without expressing any opinion on merits, and noting respondent No.2's standing counsel raised no objection to the 'innocuous prayer', the Court directed respondent No.2 to take a decision on the representation in accordance with law expeditiously, not beyond seven days. No order as to costs; pending interlocutory applications stood closed.

¶1

[³⁴⁴⁶ ]

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY 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: 5037 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

Ill-.91^Vslkgtg 44!!,.S/g.^{G Venkateshwara prasad , Aged 26 years, Occ.-} uoctor, ruo_.1-1-31l91, Phase 1 Saketh Colony Kapra Ecil post , V f C Keesara, RR District District. Hyderabad Telangaira, SbOOSZ.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, represente4 by its principal Secretary, Medical and Health Famity Wetfaie obpa'rtment. sici"iiiiii eriiOi"g. Hyo"r'r'bad

¶12

2 [qlg]i. llr.qrayana .Rao. University of Heatth Sciences, represented by its Kegtstrar, warangal, Telangana.

¶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 directions, orders, more so, a Writ, in the nature of Mandamus, by declaring the inaction of the respondents, more particularly the 2nd respondent for not considering the petitioners request for ADlr/lSSloN uNDER MANAGEMENT ouorA tvQ-2 i.e., is NRI category in next phase of counseling to pursue post graduate Medical/Diploma courses for the academic year 20242025 as arbitrary, illegal and u nconstitutiona I and consequenfly directing the respondents to consider and permit the petitioner for ADMISSIoN UNDER MANAGEMENT QUOTA MQ-2 i.e., is NRI Category to pursue post graduate Medical/Diploma Courses in academic year 2024-2025 in next phase of counseling.

¶15

ANO:1^{oF 2025}

¶16

Petition under^{Section 15'l CPC prayingthat in the circumstances stated} in the affidavit^{filedin support of the petition' the High Courl may be pleasedto} direct the^{2nd respondent to consider my representation and permit the petitioner} for ADMISSION^{UNDER MANAGEMENT QUOTA MQ-2i.C., iS NRI CAtEgOry tO} pursue post^{graduate Medical/DiplomaCourses in academic yeat 2024-2025in} next^{phase of counseling, during the pendency of the above writ petition'}

¶17

Counsel^{for the Petitioner:SRI D'S'KISHEN}

¶18

Counsel^{for the Respondent No'1: GP FORMEDICALHEALTH FW} Counsel^{for the Respondent No'2:SRI T'SHARATH' SC FOR KNRUHS} The Court^{madethe following: ORDER}

¶19

t I

¶20

THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL

¶21

AND

¶22

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.5O37 of 2o25

¶24

ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujog Pau!)

¶25

Sri D.S.Kishen, lea-rned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T.Sharath, learned Standing Counsel for Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences for respondent No.2.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is eligible for Management Quota (MQ-2) category i.e., NRI category, but erroneously he has uploaded the application for Post Graduate Courses (NEtrT-PG 20241 and has not selected the option for MQ-2. After having realized the mistake, the petitioner has already preferred a representation on 17.O2.2025, which may be directed to be decided by respondent No.2 expeditiously.

¶27

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

¶28

Accordingly, respondent No.2 is directed to take a decision on the said representation in accordance with law expeditiously, but not beyond seven days from today.

¶29

¶30

¶31