THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.25459 of 2023
ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)
Mr. Prabhakar Chikkudu, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Mr. N.Praveen Kumar, learned Government Pleader
for Medical, Health and Family Welfare appears for
respondent No.1.
Mr. A.Prabhakar Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences (hereinafter referred to as 'the University') appears for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
3. The petitioner is an aspirant seeking admission to MBBS/BDS course in the State of Telangana for the academic year 2023-24. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for the following relief:
::2::
"For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd and 3rd respondents in issuing an impugned proceedings, dated 10.09.2023 by rejecting the petitioner claim to treat as local candidate in the web counseling of the MBBS and BDS for the year 2023-2024 in pursuance of the NEET, UG Examination for the year 2023-2024 on par at par Kumari Qurrat UI Ayen (Roll No.4201320439( (Rank 127127), whose claim was considered in Writ Petition No.22449 of 2023, dated 29.08.2023 and allowed her into the Web counsel in admission of MBBS and BDS for the year 2023-2024 in pursuance of the NEET, UG Examination for the year 2023-2024 as an illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust, unfair, unreasonable, irrational, unlawful, unconstitutional and in violative of Articles 14, 21 & 21-A of the Constitution of India and in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and against the catena of judgments an Apex Court and this Hon'ble Court and set aside the same and consequently, direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to consider the petitioner claim on par at par Kumari Qurrat UI Ayen (Roll No.4201320439) (Rank 127127), whose claim was considered in pursuance of the orders of the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court, dated 29.08.2023 in Writ Petition No.22449 of 2023 and allowed her into the Web counsel in admission of MBBS and BDS for the year 2023-2024 in pursuance of the NEET, UG Examination for the year 2023-2024 and pass such orders as this ::3::
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice."
4. The petitioner initially filed W.P.No.24613 of 2023 challenging the validity of G.O.Ms.No.114, Health, Medical & Family Welfare (C1) Department, dated 05.07.2017, namely, Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS and BDS Courses) Rules, 2017 (briefly referred to hereinafter as "the Rules"). The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by a Bench of this Court by order dated 05.09.2023 in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner be granted liberty to submit a representation with regard to her grievance to the University and the University be directed to decide the said representation.
5. It appears that in pursuance of the aforesaid order, the petitioner has submitted a representation, which has been rejected by order dated 10.09.2023. The petitioner again has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 10.09.2023 by which she has been treated as non-
local candidate.
::4::
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
7. The issue whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of common order dated 29.08.2023 passed in W.P.No.21268 of 2023 and other connected writ petitions or not has already been decided by this Court vide order dated 04.09.2023 passed in W.P.No.24378 of 2023, wherein it is held that the petitioner therein is not entitled to the relief on the ground of delay and laches. Paragraphs 9 to 11 of the aforesaid order read as under:
9. It is trite law that extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary in nature. It is also trite law that delay defeats equity and this Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not grant relief to an indolent person who has slept over his rights (See S.S.Balu v. State of Kerala 1, Vijay Kumar Kaul v. Union of India 2 and U.P.Power Corporation Limited v. Ram Gopal 3).
10. The normal rule is that when a particular set of persons are given relief by the Court, all other identically 1 (2009) 2 SCC 479 2 (2012) 7 SCC 610 3 (2021) 13 SCC 225 ::5::
situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit and not doing so would amount to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. However, the aforesaid principle is subject to well recognized exceptions in the form of delay and laches as well as acquiescence. The similarly situated persons who did not challenge the wrongful action and acquiesced to the same would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delay would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim (See State of U.P v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava 4).
11. On the touchstone of the aforesaid legal principles, we may revert to the facts of the case in hand. Admittedly, the admission to MBBS course is a time- bound process and two rounds of counselling have already been held. The petitioner was declared as non- local candidate on 02.08.2023. However, the petitioner did not take any steps to challenge the action of the respondents in treating him as non-local candidate till 31.08.2023 when the petitioner filed the writ petition. The petitioner is, therefore, guilty of inaction and has slept over his rights. In the peculiar facts of the case which relates to admission to an educational institution, even an unexplained delay of 29 days is fatal to the case of the petitioner. In case we entertain the writ petition, the process of admission to MBBS course can never be concluded. Since the petitioner is guilty of inaction and has slept over his rights and is a fence-sitter, we decline to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and decline to grant him 4 (2015) 1 SCC 347 ::6::
the relief which has been granted to others who had approached this Court well within time."
8. The petitioner is guilty of delay and laches as she has filed the first writ petition after a period of one month from the date when she was declared as non-local. The petitioner is therefore not entitled to any relief.
9. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed. No order as to costs.
______________________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ _______________________________ N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J Date: 13.09.2023 Note: Issue C.C. today.
(B/o.) ES