Thota Sneha Kiran vs Dr. Ntr University Of Health ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3864 AP

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI


HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                      &
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA


                 WRIT PETITION No.15143 of 2019
                     (Taken up through video conferencing)


Thota Sneha Kiran D/o. Chaitanya Kiran,
Age 19 years, Occ: Student,
Permanent R/o. 7-1-282/C/1/2,
Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana,
Presently residing in Vijayawada.
                                                             .. Petitioner
      versus
Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences,
Rep. by Registrar, Vijayawada,
Andhra Pradesh - 520008 and others.
                                                             .. Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, for Mr. Seepani S. Kumar

Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. J. Ugranarasimha

Counsel for respondent No.2 : GP for Health, Medical & Family Welfare

Counsel for respondent No.3 : Mr. Vivek Chandra Sekhar S.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(Dt: 01.10.2021)

(per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)

Heard Mr. D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, learned counsel, representing

Mr. Seepani S. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard

Mr. J. Ugranarasimha, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1,

Mr. Appadhara Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Health, Medical &

Family Welfare appearing for respondent No.2, and Mr. Vivek Chandra

Sekhar S., learned standing counsel for respondent No.3.

                                     2                                HCJ & NJS, J
                                                            W.P.No.15143 of 2019

2. Aggrieved by denial of admission into MBBS Course under

Economically Weaker Section (for short, 'EWS') quota in the seats meant

for the candidates belonging to Osmania University local area for the

academic year 2019-2020, the petitioner had filed this writ petition

essentially praying for a direction to the respondents to admit her into

MBBS Course in Siddhartha Medical College, Vijayawada, in the seats

meant for the candidates belonging to Osmania University local area

under EWS quota for the academic year 2019-2020. Subsequently, by

way of amendment, the prayer for direction for admission in the same

College under the aforesaid quota is reiterated for the academic year

2021-2022.

3. The case of the petitioner is that she had appeared in the National

Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (UG) - 2019 for admission into MBBS/BDS

course conducted by National Board of Examinations in the month of

May, 2019, and by obtaining 479 marks, she had secured All India Rank

of 62355 and Category Rank of 33340. As she belongs to Economically

Weaker Section, she had made an application to respondent No.1 - Dr.

NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, for admission into MBBS

Course under EWS category/reservation for the academic year 2019-2020

in the seats allotted for Competent Authority quota in the State of Andhra

Pradesh. On verification of requisite documents, including Income and

Asset Certificate for Economically Weaker Sections (for short, 'EWS

Certificate') dated 31.05.2019 issued by the Tahsildar, Ameerpet Mandal,

Hyderabad, the respondent No.1-University had uploaded the list of

eligible candidates for admission under EWS category, wherein the name

of the petitioner figured at Sl.No.852 and she stood at 4th place amongst 3 HCJ & NJS, J W.P.No.15143 of 2019

candidates belonging to Osmania University local region. She had

participated in the web-based counselling and had exercised her option

for MBBS seat in Siddhartha Government Medical College, Vijayawada.

Despite her name figuring in the merit list, subsequently, the respondents

did not allot her a seat in the said College, though candidates, such as,

the candidates who secured ranks of 91513, 102833 and 188148, whose

positions were lower than that of her came to be given admission.

4. The case projected by the petitioner is that only because of the

fact that the EWS Certificate produced by her was issued by a Tahsildar

not belonging to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, her case was not

considered. It is pleaded that the petitioner, being resident of Sanath

Nagar, Hyderabad, State of Telangana, Tahsildar of Ameerpet Mandal,

Hyderabad, is the competent authority to issue such Certificate and there

is no justification for the respondents to insist upon production of a

Certificate issued by the Tahsildar of the Government of Andhra Pradesh.

5. Mr. D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, submits that there is no dispute that if the petitioner had

submitted an EWS Certificate issued by a Tahsildar of the Government of

Andhra Pradesh, she would have been admitted into MBBS Course under

EWS quota in Siddhartha Medical College and, therefore, the entitlement

of the petitioner for admission under EWS quota into the said College is

not an issue to be considered by this Court. It is submitted by him that

only because of the fact that the Registrar of respondent No.1-University

had issued a Notification dated 30.07.2019 requiring the candidates,

whose names find place in the final merit list, to produce EWS Certificate

issued by the Tahsildar concerned of the Government of Andhra Pradesh 4 HCJ & NJS, J W.P.No.15143 of 2019

for the year 2019-2020, the Certificate issued by the Tahsildar of the

Government of Telangana was not considered. It is further submitted that

G.O.Ms.No.60, Backward Classes Welfare (F) Department, dated

27.07.2019, issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, stipulated that

persons seeking the benefit of reservation under EWS category shall

obtain the necessary EWS Certificate issued by the Tahsildar concerned,

which necessarily means the Tahsildar within whose jurisdiction the

candidate resides. It is further submitted that to attach sanctity to a

Certificate issued by the Tahsildar, the same has to bear true facts and it

is not possible for someone residing in the State of Telangana to

genuinely and legitimately obtain a Certificate from the Tahsildar of the

Government of Andhra Pradesh. It is further submitted that the

respondents are relying more on production of a Certificate rather than

the authenticity and genuineness of such Certificate which would

determine the eligibility or otherwise of the candidate for admission under

EWS quota. It is also submitted that there is a reference in the

Notification dated 30.07.2019 issued by the Registrar of respondent No.1-

University to G.O.Ms.No.60 dated 27.07.2019 and, therefore, when it was

noted therein that the aforesaid G.O. has to be followed for the purpose

of implementation of 10% reservation for EWS category candidates, it

defies rationale or logic as to how the Registrar could have issued a

Notification insisting on production of a Certificate issued by a Tahsildar

of the Government of Andhra Pradesh only. If that interpretation is given

and the production of Certificate of the Tahsildar of State of Andhra

Pradesh is insisted upon, the provisions contained in Paragraph 3(2) of

the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions) 5 HCJ & NJS, J W.P.No.15143 of 2019

Order, 1974 (for short, 'the Order of 1974'), will be rendered nugatory.

He has further submitted that the petitioner has been grossly wronged by

denial of admission under EWS category and in these circumstances,

appropriate directions may be issued to the respondent No.1-University to

admit the petitioner in the next available course, so that the career of a

bright student is not put in jeopardy. He, however, fairly submits that

presently, the petitioner is undergoing BDS course.

6. Abiding by the stand taken in the counter-affidavit,

Mr. J. Ugranarasimha, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1-

University, has submitted that the Government of Telangana had issued

G.O.Ms.47, Health, Medical & Family Welfare (C) Department, dated

21.06.2019, stipulating that for admission of candidates claiming

admission under EWS category, Certificate issued by the competent

authority of the Government of Telangana would only be accepted at the

time of verification. It is in that context, the Registrar of respondent

No.1-University had issued the Notification dated 30.07.2019. Referring

to the counter-affidavit filed on 14.11.2019 and the additional counter-

affidavit filed on 04.04.2021 by the respondent No.1, it is contended by

him that when the Notification dated 30.07.2019 was issued by the

Registrar clearly demonstrating and indicating in bold letters that only the

Certificate issued by the Tahsildar concerned of the Government of

Andhra Pradesh would be accepted, the petitioner having not challenged

the said Notification and having failed to produce such Certificate in terms

of the Notification, insisted upon admission on the basis of the Certificate

issued by the Tahsildar of the Government of Telangana and, therefore,

no illegality was committed by the University in refusing admission to the 6 HCJ & NJS, J W.P.No.15143 of 2019

petitioner. He has submitted that in any view of the matter, the admission

process for the year 2019-2020 has long been over and, therefore, no

case is made out as prayed for by the petitioner to permit her to pursue

MBBS course in Siddhartha College now.

7. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the

parties and have perused the materials on record.

8. At the outset, it will be appropriate to note that in exercise of

powers conferred by Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 371-D of the

Constitution of India, the Order of 1974 was made with respect to the

State of Andhra Pradesh by the President. To understand the controversy

in right perspective, it will be appropriate to take note of the definitions of

'local area', 'local candidate', 'State Government', 'State-wide educational

institution', 'State-wide University', which are finding place in Clauses (b),

(c), (d), (e) and (f), respectively, of Paragraph 2(1) of the Order of 1974,

which read as under:

"2. Interpretation:- (1) In this Order, unless the

context otherwise requires:

(b) "local area" in respect of any University of

other educational institution, means the local area

specified in paragraph 3 of this Order for the purposes

of admission to such University or other educational

institution;

(c) "local candidate" in relation to any local area,

means a candidate who qualifies under paragraph 4 of 7 HCJ & NJS, J W.P.No.15143 of 2019

this Order as a local candidate in relation to such local

area;

(d) "State Government" means the Government

of Andhra Pradesh.

(e) "State-wide educational institution" means an

educational institution or a department of an

educational institution specified in the Schedule to this

order;

(f) "State-wide University" means the Andhra

Pradesh Agricultural University constituted under the

Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University Act, 1963 (A.P.

Act 24 of 1963), or the Jawaharlal Nehru Technological

University constituted under the Jawaharlal Nehru

Technological University Act, 1972 (A.P. Act 16 of

1972)."

9. Paragraph 3 of the Order of 1974 deals with 'Local Area'. Perusal

of sub-paragraph (1) of Paragraph 3 would go to show that the part of

the State comprising the Districts of Srikakulam, Visakhapatnam, West

Godavari, East Godavari, Krishna, Guntur and Prakasam shall be regarded

as local area for the purpose of admission to Andhra University,

Nagarjuna University and to any other educational institution (other than

State-wide University or State-wide educational institution), which is

subject to the control of the State Government and is situated in that

part.

                                       8                                HCJ & NJS, J
                                                              W.P.No.15143 of 2019

10. Paragraph 3(2) provides that the part of the State comprising the

Districts of Adilabad, Hyderabad, Karimnagar, Khammam,

Mahaboobnagar, Medak, Nalgonda, Nizamabad and Warangal shall be

regarded as local area for the purpose of admission to Osmania

University, Kakatiya University and to any other educational institution

(other than a State-wide University or State-wide educational institution)

which is subject to the control of the State Government and is situated in

that part.

11. Pausing here for a moment, it will be relevant to state that the

petitioner is a resident of Hyderabad District in the State of Telangana,

which comes within the fold of local area for the purpose specified in

Paragraph 3(2) as noted above.

12. Paragraph 3(3) of the Order of 1974 provides that the part of the

State comprising the Districts of Anantapur, Cuddapah, Kurnool, Chittoor

and Nellore shall be regarded as the local area for the purposes of

admission to Sri Venkateswara University and to any other educational

institution (other than a State-wide University or State-wide educational

institution) which is subject to the control of the State Government and is

situated in that part.

13. Paragraph 5 of the Order of 1974 deals with reservation in non-

State-wide Universities and educational institutions, which reads as

under:

"5. Reservation in non-State-wide Universities

and educational institutions:- (1) Admission to eighty-

five percent of the available seats in every course of 9 HCJ & NJS, J W.P.No.15143 of 2019

study provided by the Andhra University, the Nagarjuna

University, the Osmania University, the Kakatiya

University or Sri Venkateswara University or by any

educational institution (other than a State-wide

university or a State-wide educational institution) which

is subject to the control of the State Government shall

be reserved in favour of the local candidates in relation

to the local area in respect of such University or other

educational institution.

(2) While determining under sub-paragraph (1)

the number of seats to be reserved in favour of local

candidates any fraction of a seat shall be counted as

one:

Provided that there shall be at least one

unreserved seat."

14. Paragraph 6 deals with reservation in State-wide Universities and

State-wide educational institutions and the same reads as under:

"6. Reservation in State-wide Universities and State-

wide educational institutions:- (1) Admissions to eighty-

five percent of the available seats in every course of

study provided by a State-wide University or a State-

wide educational institution shall be reserved in favour

of and allocated among the local candidates in relation

to the local areas specified in sub-paragraph (1), sub-

                                     10                                HCJ & NJS, J
                                                             W.P.No.15143 of 2019

paragraph (2) and sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 3, in

the ratio of 42:36:22 respectively:

Provided that this sub-paragraph shall not apply in

relation to any course of study in which the total

number of available seats does not exceed three.

(2) While determining under sub-paragraph (1) the

number of seats to be reserved in favour of the local

candidates, any fraction of a seat shall be counted as

one:

Provided that there shall be at least one unreserved

seat:

(3) While allocating under sub-paragraph (1) the

reserved seats among the local candidates in relation to

different local areas, fractions of a seat shall be

adjusted by counting the greatest fractions as one and,

if necessary, also the greater of the remaining fractions

as another; and, where the fraction to be so counted

cannot be selected by reason of the fractions being

equal, the selection shall be by lot:

Provided that there shall be at least one seat

allocated for the local candidates in respect of each

local area."

15. In the Schedule [vide Paragraph 2(e)] to the Order of 1974, State-

wide Educational Institutions which are subject to the control of the State 11 HCJ & NJS, J W.P.No.15143 of 2019

Government are specified. Siddhartha Medical College, Vijayawada, into

which the petitioner claims admission, finds place at Serial No.12 of the

said Schedule.

16. Paragraph 6 would indicate that 85% of the available seats in

every course of study provided by a State-wide University or a State-wide

educational institution shall be reserved in favour of and allocated among

the local candidates in relation to the local areas specified in sub-

paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) of paragraph 3 in the ratio of 42:36:22

respectively.

17. It is on the basis of the aforesaid reservation, the petitioner claims

that she is entitled to be considered for admission within the 36% quota

in the respondent No.1-University and more particularly, in Siddhartha

Medical College, Vijayawada, she being a local area candidate of Osmania

University.

18. Having laid down the preface, it will be appropriate to consider the

controversy which has denied the petitioner a seat in the aforesaid

College.

19. In order to regulate the implementation of 10% reservation to the

candidates belonging to EWS category for admission into educational

institutions for the academic year 2019-2020, the Government of Andhra

Pradesh had issued G.O.Ms.No.60, Backward Classes Welfare (F)

Department, dated 27.07.2019.

20. Paragraph 9 of the said G.O.Ms.No.60 dated 27.07.2019 is relevant

for the purpose of the present case and, therefore, the same is

reproduced hereunder:

                                   12                                    HCJ & NJS, J
                                                               W.P.No.15143 of 2019




       "9.   In view of the above, Government hereby

decided to fill up the EWS quota of supernumerary seats

in Higher Educational Institutions in accordance with

103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019 and the

guidelines issued by Govt., of India vide Office

Memorandum F.No.36039/1/2019-Estt (Res.) Dated:

19.01.2019. The guidelines relevant for current academic

year 2019-2020, in regard to the subject matter

consistent with 103rd Constitutional Amendment, would

read as under:

i. All Castes which are not covered under any

reservation category (SC/ST/BC) are entitled to

avail of the reservation facility under EWS

Category.

ii. The students admitted under EWS Category will

be adjusted against the 10 percent of the

sanctioned seats granted additionally, as is

followed by the Government of India. However,

1/3rd (33 1/3) of the seats enhanced for the

purpose of accommodating the EWS Category

students shall be earmarked to women among

them.

iii. The model format of the EWS Certificate

prescribed by Government of India in Annexure-I

vide their O.M.No.36039/1/2019-Estt. (Res), 13 HCJ & NJS, J W.P.No.15143 of 2019

Dated: 31-1-2019 shall be followed along with the

conditions referred in para 2 above.

iv. The persons seeking the benefit of reservation

under EWS category shall obtain the necessary

EWS Certificate issued by the Tahsildar concerned.

v. The eligibility conditions for a person to avail of

the facility of EWS reservation are the same as

fixed by the Government of India as referred in

Para 2 above."

21. Thus, as per Paragraph 9(iv) of G.O.Ms.No.60, a person seeking

the benefit of reservation under EWS category is required to obtain

necessary EWS Certificate from the Tahsildar concerned.

22. There is another Government Order, i.e., G.O.Ms.No.39, Higher

Education (E.C) Department, dated 30.07.2019, which was issued three

days after the earlier guidelines were issued vide G.O.Ms.No.60 dated

27.07.2019. Essentially, G.O.Ms.No.39 extracts the relevant guidelines

which are already noted in the preceding paragraph, namely, that the

persons seeking the benefit of reservation under EWS category shall

obtain the necessary EWS certificate issued by the Tahsildar concerned.

23. On 29.07.2019, the Registrar of respondent No.1-University sent a

communication to the Principal Secretary to Government, Health, Medical

& Family Welfare Department, Andhra Pradesh, requesting him to issue

necessary guidelines for allotment of surrendered seats (All India Quota)

and also sanctioned seats under EWS quota. Though

Mr. J. Ugranarasimha has stated that the aforesaid communication was 14 HCJ & NJS, J W.P.No.15143 of 2019

issued in consonance with the stand taken by the Government of

Telangana, there is no reference in the aforesaid communication to the

stand taken by the Government of Telangana. In the Notification dated

30.07.2019 issued by the Registrar of respondent No.1-University, it was

stipulated as under:

"Therefore, all the candidates who are present

in the final merit list for admission into Competent

Authority Quota are hereby informed to attend for

verification of original "Income and Asset

Certificate for Economically Weaker Sections"

issued by the Tahsildar concerned of

Government of AP for the year 2019-20 for

confirmation of eligibility for 10% reservation under

Economically Weaker Sections in the specified

Government colleges as per the schedule given below

at Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada."

24. When it is the consistent stand of the Government of Andhra

Pradesh that the candidates claiming benefit of reservation under EWS

Category must produce the required certificate issued by the Tahsildar

concerned, the Registrar of respondent No.1-University, on his own, had

imposed a restriction to the effect that the candidates aspiring for a seat

under EWS Category must necessarily produce a certificate issued by a

Tahsildar of the Government of Andhra Pradesh only, ignoring the fact

that the Tahsildar within whose jurisdiction the particular candidate

resides will be the competent authority to issue such a certificate in

favour of that candidate. It is not understood as to how a Tahsildar in 15 HCJ & NJS, J W.P.No.15143 of 2019

the State of Andhra Pradesh can legitimately give a certificate to a person

residing in the State of Telangana. The petitioner could not satisfy such

condition for good reasons and as she belongs to the State of Telangana,

she had produced a certificate of Tahsildar within whose jurisdiction she

resides.

25. The argument advanced by Mr. J. Ugranarasimha that the

petitioner did not challenge the Notification dated 30.07.2019 issued by

the Registrar and further did not produce the certificate as insisted upon

in the said Notification and is, therefore, not entitled to a seat under EWS

quota, cannot be countenanced. Though no challenge was made to the

Notification dated 30.07.2019, it is to be noted that this Court exercises

extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and

the technicalities will not bind the writ Court where the cause of justice

demands. This Court can always mould the relief. When the Government

issued Orders categorically stating that the EWS Certificate shall be

obtained from the concerned Tahsildar, meaning thereby, the Tahsildar

within whose jurisdiction the candidate resides, there was no justification

for the Registrar to modify such requirement and impose a restriction on

his own. The learned counsel appearing for the University is unable to

show under what authority the Registrar had issued the said Notification.

We are of the considered opinion that the action of the Registrar of

respondent No.1-University in insisting upon production of a Certificate

issued by the Tahsildar of Government of Andhra Pradesh only, overriding

the instructions given by the Government, was wholly uncalled for and by

such arbitrary action of the Registrar, the petitioner was unfairly treated

and her right to obtain a seat in MBBS course under EWS category was 16 HCJ & NJS, J W.P.No.15143 of 2019

unjustifiably denied, resulting in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution

of India.

26. Having arrived at the aforesaid conclusion, we have to determine

as to what kind of relief the petitioner will be entitled to in the attending

facts and circumstances of the case.

27. Mr. Vivek Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for the National Medical

Commission, submits that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of National Medical Commission v. Mothukuru

Sriyah Koumudi and others (Civil Appeal No.3940 of 2020 dated

07.12.2020), it is now permissible in given circumstances to allot a seat

to a candidate in the next academic year. He, however, submits that if

the petitioner is to be allotted a seat, the same has to be on the basis of

curtailing the seats available for the ensuing year and not by creation of

supernumerary seats. He also submits that if admission has to be given

now, such admission has to be on the basis of the marks obtained in

NEET-2021.

28. Mr. D.V. Nagarjuna Babu contends that there is no indication in the

aforesaid judgment that a seat has to be curtailed in the ensuing year

and, therefore, supernumerary seats can be created in order to do justice

to the petitioner.

29. In National Medical Commission (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme

Court had taken note of the observations made in S. Krishna Sradha v.

State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (2019) SCC Online SC 1609,

wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the

nature of relief that can be granted to a student after the last date of 17 HCJ & NJS, J W.P.No.15143 of 2019

admissions in case it was found that the said candidate was denied

admission illegally. The observations so made in the case of S. Krishna

Sradha (supra) are as follows:

"33. In light of the discussion/observations

made hereinabove, a meritorious candidate/student

who has been denied an admission in MBBS Course

illegally or irrationally by the authorities for no fault of

his/her and who has approached the Court in time and

so as to see that such a meritorious candidate may not

have to suffer for no fault of his/her, we answer the

reference as under:

(i) That in a case where candidate/student has

approached the court at the earliest and without any

delay and that the question is with respect to the

admission in medical course all the efforts shall be

made by the concerned court to dispose of the

proceedings by giving priority and at the earliest.

(ii) Under exceptional circumstances, if the court

finds that there is no fault attributable to the candidate

and the candidate has pursued his/her legal right

expeditiously without any delay and there is fault only

on the part of the authorities and/or there is apparent

breach of rules and regulations as well as related

principles in the process of grant of admission which

would violate the right of equality and equal treatment

to the competing candidates and if the time schedule 18 HCJ & NJS, J W.P.No.15143 of 2019

prescribed - 30th September, is over, to do the

complete justice, the Court under exceptional

circumstances and in rarest of rare cases direct the

admission in the same year by directing to increase

the seats, however, it should not be more than one or

two seats and such admissions can be ordered within

reasonable time, i.e., within one month from 30th

September, i.e., cut off date and under no

circumstances, the Court shall order any Admission in

the same year beyond 30th October. However, it is

observed that such relief can be granted only in

exceptional circumstances and in the rarest of rare

cases. In case of such an eventuality, the Court may

also pass an order cancelling the admission given to a

candidate who is at the bottom of the merit list of the

category who, if the admission would have been given

to a more meritorious candidate who has been denied

admission illegally, would not have got the admission,

if the Court deems it fit and proper, however, after

giving an opportunity of hearing to a student whose

admission is sought to be cancelled.

(iii) In case the Court is of the opinion that no

relief of admission can be granted to such a candidate

in the very academic year and wherever it finds that

the action of the authorities has been arbitrary and in

breach of the rules and regulations or the prospectus 19 HCJ & NJS, J W.P.No.15143 of 2019

affecting the rights of the students and that a

candidate is found to be meritorious and such

candidate/student has approached the court at the

earliest and without any delay, the court can mould

the relief and direct the admission to be granted to

such a candidate in the next academic year by issuing

appropriate directions by directing to increase in the

number of seats as may be considered appropriate in

the case and in case of such an eventuality and if it is

found that the management was at fault and wrongly

denied the admission to the meritorious candidate, in

that case, the Court may direct to reduce the number

of seats in the management quota of that year,

meaning thereby the student/students who was/were

denied admission illegally to be accommodated in the

next academic year out of the seats allotted in the

management quota.

(iv) Grant of the compensation could be an

additional remedy but not a substitute for restitutional

remedies. Therefore, in an appropriate case the Court

may award the compensation to such a meritorious

candidate who for no fault of his/her has to lose one

full academic year and who could not be granted any

relief of admission in the same academic year.

                                     20                               HCJ & NJS, J
                                                            W.P.No.15143 of 2019

(v) It is clarified that the aforesaid directions

pertain for Admission in MBBS Course only and we

have not dealt with Post Graduate Medical Course."

30. The contention of Mr. Vivek Chandra Sekhar that if admission has

to be given to the petitioner, such admission should be on the basis of

the marks obtained in NEET-2021, is without any foundation. If the

petitioner had been denied admission for no fault on her part and the

Court finds that a direction is called for to give admission, it cannot be

countenanced that she has to again appear for the entrance examination

to be eligible for admission.

31. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the

opinion that the decision rendered in S. Krishna Sradha (supra) is

applicable in the instant case and, as such, we deem it appropriate to

direct the respondent authorities to admit the petitioner into MBBS Course

in Siddhartha Medical College, Vijayawada, in the academic year 2021-22,

if necessary, by increasing a seat for such Course.

32. The writ petition is allowed and disposed of with the aforesaid

direction. No costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

closed.

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ                           NINALA JAYASURYA, J


                                                                           IBL