Sri Swaraj Ravindar Nagapuri, vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 1938 Tel

          THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                                         AND
          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR


                WRIT PETITION No.24378 of 2023

ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)


         Mr. N.Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for the

petitioner.

         Mr. K.Uday Kumar, learned Assistant Government

Pleader for Health, Medical & Family Welfare Department,

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") for respondents

No.2 and 3.

2. In this writ petition, the petitioner inter alia has

prayed for the following relief:

For the reasons stated in the above accompanying affidavit, the petitioner herein prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in declaring the

petitioner as NL (Non Local) candidate at Sl.No.8066 as per G.O.Ms.No.114 dated 05.07.2017 for admission into MBBS Admission 2023-24, under competent authority quota as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and in contravention of procedure established by law and set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner herein as local candidate under Osmania University category for all admission formalities in MBBS admissions 2023-2024 under competent authority quota and management quota in the light of the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.Nos.21268 of 2023 and pass any such further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.

3. The petitioner had appeared in the NEET UG

examination which was held on 07.05.2023. The petitioner

was declared successful in the aforesaid examination.

Paragraph 5 of the writ petition reads as under:

I respectfully submit that in exercise of its powers, respondent No.2 issued a notification dt.2/8/2023 for "Final Merit List after verification of uploaded certificates". It is submitted that when I searched for my name in the list, I was shocked to find my name under the head - "NL" (Non Local) under the State Merit List Sl.No.8066."

4. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner was declared as

non-local candidate on 02.08.2023.

5. Several students like the petitioner, who had

appeared in the NEET UG examination, had filed writ

petitions, namely W.P.No.21268 of 2023 and batch, in

which challenge was made to the validity of Rule 3(III)(B) of

the Telangana Medical & Dental Colleges Admission

(Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules, 2017

(hereafter referred to as '2017 Rules'), and had sought the

relief treating them as local candidates. The aforesaid writ

petitions were decided by a Division Bench of this Court by

a common order dated 29.08.2023. The Bench of this

Court read down Rule 3(III)(B) of the 2017 Rules and held

that the same would not apply to permanent residents of

the State of Telangana. However, the relief was confined

only to the petitioners in the said writ petitions.

6. After a period of about 29 days from treating the

petitioner as non-local candidate, the petitioner has filed

this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that the petitioner is a student and therefore he

be treated as a local candidate.

7. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the

University submitted that the petitioner has approached

belatedly before this Court and admission to MBBS course

is a time-bound process in view of pronouncement of

decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is also submitted

that two rounds of counselling have already been held.

8. We have heard the submissions made on both sides

and have perused the record.

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 Kerala1, Vijay

(2009) 2 SCC 479

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

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

(2012) 7 SCC 610

(2021) 13 SCC 225

(2015) 1 SCC 347

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 the relief which has been granted to others who had

approached this Court well within time.

12. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any

merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby

dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

______________________________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ

______________________________________ N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J

04.09.2023 vs