Neil Manesh vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 2309 Tel

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

              WRIT PETITION No.25306 of 2023

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

         Mr. Nayakawadi Ramesh, 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 No.2.

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 a writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus by declaring the communication letter of the 2nd respondent dated 10.09.2023 wherein rejecting my claim to treat me as local candidate on the ground that I studied outside the State of Telangana from 6th to 10th class stating that considering me as local candidate is contrary to the provisions as per the presidential order though this Hon'ble Court read down Rule 3(III)(B) of 2017 Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.114, dated 05.07.2017 as unconstitutional and set aside the same with a consequential direction to treat me as a local candidate for all the purposes of admission into MBBS & BDS courses for the academic year 2023-24 under the aegis of KNR University of Health Sciences, Telangana State in terms of the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.21268 of 2023 & batch as dated 29.08.2023 and to pass such other orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of this case and in the interest of justice."

4. The petitioner initially filed W.P.No.24656 of 2023

challenging the validity of Rule 3(III)(B) of the 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 ::3::

disposed of by a Bench of this Court by order dated

06.09.2023 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 his

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 validity of

Rule 3(III)(B) of the Rules and the order dated 10.09.2023

by which he has been treated as non-local candidate.

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, ::4::

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 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).

(2009) 2 SCC 479

(2012) 7 SCC 610

(2021) 13 SCC 225

(2015) 1 SCC 347 ::5::

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 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 he has

filed the first writ petition after a period of one month from

the date when he was declared as non-local. The

petitioner now once again has assailed the validity of Rule

3(III)(B) of the Rules. The petitioner is therefore not

entitled to any relief.

::6::

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