V A P M S College Of Physiotheraphy vs Gunupuru Sai Sneha
2023 Latest Caselaw 4606 AP

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.1075 of 2022

V.A.P.M.S. College of Physiotheraphy,
Sponsored by V.A.P.M.S. Charitable Trust,
Visakhapatnam, Represented by its Principal
R. Rajani Cartor Medidi.
... Appellant

Versus
Gunupuru Sai Sneha,
D/o. Chandra Sekhara Rao,
Aged 27 years, R/o. Flat No.102,
Arlington Heights Apartment,
White Fields, Kondapur,
Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State
and two others.

...kespondents
Counsel for the appellant : Sri R. Siva Sai Swarup
Counsel for respondent No.1 : Sri Ch. Lakshmi Narayana

Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3 : Sri Guttapalem Vijaya Kumar, learned Standing Counsel.

Dt.:29.09.2025

The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 27% June, 2022, in W.P. No.15673 of

2088.

HCJ & RRR, J

2. The writ Court, by virtue of the judgment and order impugned herein, has simply directed the respondents in the writ petition/appellant and respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein to consider the representation filed by the petitioner and to pass orders preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of

submission of the said representation.

3. Instead of deciding the representation on merits, the present appeal has been preferred primarily on the ground that the writ Court ought not to have directed the authorities to consider the representation inasmuch as the candidate did not possess the requisite eligibility to appear in the examination on account of the fact that she did not have the required attendance to appear in the

examination.

4. Needless to say that the petitioner was undergoing the Bachelor of Physio Theraphy Course, which is to be completed in a period of four years but not later than eight years. According to the learned Standing Counsel for the University, the petitioner was unable to complete the said course within the prescribed period of

eight years and also lacked the requisite attendance requirement.

5. We are, however, not concerned with the merits of the present

case inasmuch as the order gave ample opportunity to the

HCJ & RRR, J

concerned authorities including the University and the college concerned to decide the representation of the petitioner. There was no positive direction that the attendance requirement should be relaxed. The appellant simply appears to have refused to even consider the representation in terms of the directions passed by the writ Court. We do not find any merit in the present appeal, which is

accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

AMD

HCJ & RRR, J

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

WRIT APPEAL No.1075 of 2022

Dt:89.09.20285

AMD