Telangana High Court

Bolla Uday Kiran vs The State Of Telangana on 15 April, 2024

Author: Surepalli Nanda

Bench: Surepalli Nanda

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

                 W.P. No. 31167 of 2023

Between:

Bolla Uday Kumar
                                                ... Petitioner
And

The State of Telangana and others
                                        ...       Respondents


JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 15.04.2024


      THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA


1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers    :     Yes
   may be allowed to see the Judgment?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be    :     Yes
   marked to Law Reporters/Journals?

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to          :     Yes
   see the fair copy of the Judgment?

                                    __________________
                                    SUREPALLI NANDA, J
                                2
                                                          WP_31167_2023
                                                                   SN,J




      THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

                  W.P. No. 31167 of 2023

% 15.04.2024


Between:

# Bolla Uday Kumar
                                                    ... Petitioner
And

$ The State of Telangana and others
                                               ... Respondents

< Gist:

> Head Note:

!Counsel for the Petitioner:   Mr A.Phani Bhushan

^Counsel for Respondent No.1: G.P. for Higher Education

^counsel for Respondents 2 and 3: Mr Ch. Jagannatha Rao




? Cases Referred:
                                3
                                                              WP_31167_2023
                                                                       SN,J




      HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

                   W.P. No. 31167 of 2023

ORDER:

Heard Mr A.Phani Bhushan, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned

Government Pleader for Higher Education appearing on

behalf of the 1st respondent and Mr Ch.Jagannatha Rao,

learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of

respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

2. The petitioner approached this Court seeking

prayer as under:

"to issue a writ or order or directions more particularly one in the nature of the Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents, more particularly, respondent No.3 in depriving the admission to the petitioner herein in Master of Commerce (Marketing) in 2nd respondent's University, though, he secured 76th rank and provisionally allotted seat in 1st phase counselling in open category in M.Com (Marketing) and compelled the petitioner to pay the course fee of Rs.20,800/- and cancelling the said allotment is being arbitrary, illegal, unjust, perverse and contrary to the provisions of the Presidential Order, besides being violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and seeking

WP_31167_2023 SN,J

consequential direction to the respondents to admit the petitioner for prosecuting M.Com (Marketing) pursuant to the Common Post Graduation Entrance Test, 2023 with all consequential benefits."

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, as per the

averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed

in support of the present writ petition is as under:

a) The petitioner hails from Backward Community and poor

family background. The petitioner was graduated in B.Com

from University of Delhi and prepared for Civil Services

Examination, apart from the petitioner's academic studies.

The petitioner made an application through online for Master

of Commerce (M.Com) Admission Course offered for faculty of

Commerce by the 3rd respondent university through a

notification issued by the 2nd respondent university.

b) The petitioner was issued with hall ticket bearing

No.51095770321 indicating the date of examination as

09.07.2023 and the petitioner appeared on the said date for

the Common Post Graduate Entrance Test. The Respondent

university had declared results through website where the

petitioner downloaded the rank card and secured 56 marks,

got 76th State Rank.

WP_31167_2023 SN,J

c) The petitioner participated in the first phase counselling

through online, after satisfying preliminary certificate

verification and all the eligibility criteria of the petitioner the

university had provisionally allotted with admission and

informed that the site is opened for exercising web options.

The petitioner exercised web options on 23.09.2023 and the

petitioner was allotted seat in 2nd opted college i.e. the

University College of Commerce and Business Management,

Osmania University Campus, Hyderabad, in M.Com

(Marketing) under regular, open, general category. The

petitioner paid course fee of Rs.20,800/- on30.09.2023 with

transaction ID C22988634 and downloaded the

acknowledgment card.

d) As the petitioner was not satisfied with the above said

course, the petitioner participated in the 2nd phase counselling

and exercised options on 14.10.2023, only in one college i.e.

University College of Commerce and Business Management,

Osmania University Campus, Hyderabad for M.Com (Finance)

Course, i.e. the 2nd respondent. The petitioner while checking

for provisional allotment status through website on

29.10.2023, found that the seat was not allotted.

WP_31167_2023 SN,J

Consequently, the petitioner raised a complaint through e-mail

with enquiry ID: 115423 with a subject "allotted seat was

cancelled". The petitioner requested the 2nd respondent to

consider the petitioner's candidature for earlier allotted M.Com

(Marketing) course seat for which the university acknowledged

the receipt on 29.10.2023, but till date there is no response.

e) With no other option left, the petitioner enquired with

the respondent university about petitioner's Post Graduation

seat cancellation through university helpline numbers.

Thereafter, the respondent university replied that the

petitioner is non local to the respondent university.

f) To that effect the petitioner had obtained residence-

cum-local area certificate from the concerned Tahsildar,

Suryapet District, which is petitioner's native place and is

evident that the petitioner is the resident for four consecutive

academic years, out of seven years preceding the qualifying

examination to the Common Post Graduation Entrance Test,

2023 at the 2nd respondent university. Aggrieved by the

action of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner filed the present

writ petition.

PERUSED THE RECORD

WP_31167_2023 SN,J

4. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed counter affidavit and

in particular, at para 2, reads as under:

"2) In response to the various Paras of the affidavit filed by the petitioner, I submit that the Convener & Director of CPGET has diligently fulfilled his duties in accordance with prescribed protocols, ensuring the integrity of the entire process. As per Government order G.O.No.646, dt: 10.07.1979, the Petitioner is classified as a non-

local, despite having completed his SSC and Intermediate Education within our state. It is further submitted that the relevant qualifying Examination is B.Com. for the Admission into M.Com Course. As per the Annexure-I enclosed to the CPGET-2023 general rules, Regulations and Instructions as mentioned in Para (7), the Petitioner is falling under Non-Local category as he has passed relevant qualifying Examination of B.Com from other State. Therefore as per his ranking he is not coming in the Zone of Consideration for admission into M.Com.(Marketing). However, due to mistake the petitioner given Admission into M.Com. Commerce in first phase of Counselling. However after rectifying the mistake as per rules the petitioner was given admission into M.Com.(IS) i.e., another branch in the very same College under Non- Local category. This classification is pivotal in determining eligibility for further admission into higher education courses within our state. Even though the candidate claimed to be a local candidate on the application form, it was later discovered during final

WP_31167_2023 SN,J

verification that he belongs to the non-Local category according to his educational certificates for further higher education. As a result, the provisional allotment of admission was cancelled.

The adherence to G.O.No.646 underscores CPGET's commitment to following established guidelines, promoting fairness and transparency in the admission process. This ensures that candidates are evaluated based on their Local or Non-Local status, contributing to an equitable and just selection process.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondents submits that a bare perusal of the

provisional allotment order issued to students in

general indicates that allotment of seat is provisional

and it will be confirmed only after verification of all

original certificates by authorised person of allotted

College. The Rules of Admission in accordance with the

A.P. Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission)

Order, 1974 and in particular, Clause B, reads as under:

"Clause B: Local Candidate:

1. A candidate for admission to any course of study shall be regarded as a local candidate in relation to local area:

i) If he/she has studied in a educational Institution or Educational Institutions in such local area for a period of not less than four consecutive academic years ending

WP_31167_2023 SN,J

with the academic year in which he/she appeared or as the case may be, first appeared in the relevant qualifying examination.

or

ii) Where, during the whole or any part of the four consecutive academic years ending with the academic year in which he/she appeared or as the case may be, first appeared for the relevant qualifying examination, he/she has not studied in any educational institution if he/she has resided in that local area for a period of not less than four years immediately preceding the date of commencement of the relevant qualifying examination in which he/she appeared or, as the case may be, first appeared.

2. A candidate for admission to any course of study who is not regarded as a local candidate under sub- paragraph 1(i) in relation to any local area shall:

(a) If he / she has studied in an educational institution in the State for a period of not less than seven consecutive academic years ending with the academic year in which he/she appeared or, as the case may be first appeared for the relevant qualifying examination be regarded as a local candidate in relation to:

i) Such local area where he/she has studied for the maximum period out or of the said period of seven years.

WP_31167_2023 SN,J

(ii) Where the periods of study in two or more local areas are equal, such local area where he/she has studied last in such equal periods.

b) If, during the whole or any part of the seven consecutive academic years ending with the academic year in which he/she appeared, or as the case may be, first appeared for the relevant qualifying examination, he/she has studied in the educational institution in any local area, but has resided in the State during the whole of the said period of seven years be regarded as a local candidate in relation to

(i) Such local area where he/she has resided for the maximum period out of the said period of seven years. or

(ii) Where the periods of his/her residence in two or more local areas are equal, such local area where he/she has resided last in such equal periods."

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondent referring to rules of admission in force,

contends that the petitioner studied Maximum period at

Delhi, petitioner graduated at Delhi, hence, petitioner is

a non-local as per Rule 2(a)(i) of the Admission Rules.

7. Taking into consideration, the relevant rule

position governing the admission of the petitioner in

WP_31167_2023 SN,J

particular Rule 2(a)(i) of Rules of Admission in force,

and duly taking into consideration Rule (B) which

explains who a local candidate is (referred to and

extracted above) and duly taking into consideration the