Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Vice Chairman And Managing Director vs Allam Navaneith Sai Royal on 30 November, 2023
Author: R.Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R.Raghunandan Rao
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT APPEAL No.1174 of 2023
The Vice Chairman and Managing Director,
Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh,
Indira Gandhi Municipal Stadium,
M.G.Road, Vijayawada, Krishna District.
... Appellant
Vs.
Allam Navaneith Sai Royal,
S/o. Allam Prasanna Lakshmi Narayana,
Aged about 15 years, R/o.58/383615,
Chowtapalli Road, near Akkadevatala Temple,
Akkayapalli, Kadapa, Kadapa District - 516 003,
Rep. by his Natural Guardian/Father
Allam Prasanna Lakshmi Narayana and 6 Others
... Respondents
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. Ravi Kiran Kumar Kolusu
Counsel for the Respondents : Ms. Avanija Inuganti - R1
Mr. Jupudi V. K. Yagnadutt - R2
G.P. for Services - II - R3
G.P. for Higher Education - R4
Mr.P.Chandra Sekhar Reddy - R5
2 HCJ & RRR, J
Dt.: 30.11.2023
PER DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ (Oral):
The present appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated
25.09.2023, passed in W.P.No.21209 of 2023.
2. The writ petition was filed challenging inter alia
G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 15.07.2008 to the extent that it did not include
the sports certificates issued by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan
(in short "KVS") for purposes of availing the benefit of admission in
educational institutions under the sports quota. The petitioner had
also challenged the action of the Sports Authority of Andhra
Pradesh (in short "SAAP") in declaring the petitioner as ineligible
and publishing the name of the petitioner in the list of ineligible
candidates.
3. During the course of hearing before the learned Single Judge,
reference was made to the policy of the State of Delhi in including
the students of KVS in the list of eligible candidates for purposes of
providing sports quota to their students. Insofar as the State of
3 HCJ & RRR, J
Telangana is concerned, the stand of the learned counsel for the
petitioner was that G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 15.07.2008 had already
been scrapped and that the Tourism and Culture (Sports)
Department and the SAAP were dragging their feet in not
rationalising the sports quota policy at par with various other
states at the national level.
4. It appears that during the course of hearing before the
learned Single Judge, learned Standing Counsel for SAAP fairly
submitted that the guidelines issued by the State of Telangana were
being "closely considered" and that in the near future and within
the current academic year itself, the SAAP would also bring out
guidelines with the recommendation to the Government of Andhra
Pradesh for issuance of the necessary Government Order.
5. It was in the aforementioned background and on the fair and
candid statement made by the learned Standing Counsel for the
SAAP and in order to meet the ends of justice, the writ petition was
allowed with a direction to the respondents in the writ petition to
consider the case of the petitioner along with other candidates who
were similarly situate but had not approached the Court in the
current academic year 2023-24.
4 HCJ & RRR, J
6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the
direction issued by the learned single Judge to consider other
candidates also even when they had not approached the Court for
consideration for admission under the sports quota for the current
academic year 2023-24 would create problems and also open a
flood gate in future.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
8. On a reading of the judgment and order impugned, it is clear
to us that the stand of the Sports Authority before the writ Court
was one of acquiescence/consent in which it was indicated to the
writ Court that they would adopt the policy which was being
followed in the State of Telangana and that preliminary steps could
not be taken due to change in the officeholder of the post of VC and
MD of SAAP.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant before the writ Court had
also clearly indicated that it would make a recommendation to the
Government of Andhra Pradesh for issuance of the necessary
Government Order. The decision in the writ petition therefore
5 HCJ & RRR, J
clearly is one primarily based upon the stand and
consent/acquiescence of the appellant herein. Ordinarily, an appeal
against an order based upon such a consent would not be
maintainable. In that background, learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the judgment and order be modified to the extent of
limiting the benefit only to the petitioner.
10. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case
and with a view to enable the appellant to frame an appropriate
policy as was suggested before the writ Court, we restrict the
benefit of the judgment and order impugned to the petitioner alone,
who had raised the issue before the Court for the current academic
year 2023-24. The judgment and order, dated 25.09.2023, shall
accordingly be modified to that extent. The appellant would be at
liberty to make appropriate suggestions and recommendations to
the Government in regard to the students of the KVS for
consideration under the sports quota for the academic years 2024-
2025 onwards.
11. This writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.
6 HCJ & RRR, J
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
kbs
7 HCJ & RRR, J
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
(per Dhiraj Singh Thakur, CJ)
Dt: 30.11.2023
kbs
