Dr Challagundla V R Babu vs. State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court held that it is not open for the petitioner to assail Clause 17 of the notification dated 10.03.2022. The Court agreed with the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-University that Clause 17 of the earlier notification dated 23.02.2022 and Clause 17 of the present notification dated 10.03.2022 were inserted with the bonafide intention of avoiding blockage of seats and resultant wastage of time. The Court found that this action could not be faulted, especially considering the incorporation of Clause 17 in the notification dated 23.02.2022, which the petitioner had participated in and joined a seat. The Court further held that the judgments cited by the petitioner's counsel would not render any assistance in this case. Therefore, the Court found no merit in the Writ Petition and dismissed it. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, a medical practitioner with MBBS and Diploma in Child Care, participated in NEET-PG 2020-2021. She secured a seat in MD (Pulmonary Medicine) under Management Quota in Phase-I counselling on 25.02.2022 and joined on 03.03.2022. Subsequently, she participated in Phase-II State Quota counselling and secured another seat in the same course and college, joining on 05.03.2022. The challenge is to Clause 17 of the notification dated 10.03.2022, issued by Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences for PG medical admissions, which debars candidates who joined any State Quota seat in Phase-I/II/III from participating in Management Quota Phase-II/Mop Up Round counselling. The petitioner argues this clause affects sliding options retrospectively and is without jurisdiction. The University contends the clause prevents seat blockage and wastage of time, referencing a similar clause in a prior notification dated 23.02.2022 for Phase-II State Quota counselling.

Key Issues

1. Whether Clause 17 of the notification dated 10.03.2022, which debars candidates who joined any State Quota seat from participating in Management Quota Phase-II/Mop Up Round counselling, is legally tenable and within the jurisdiction of the issuing authority, considering it affects the petitioner's ability to slide to a better seat? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation of the notification and principles of natural justice/fairness in admissions). Petitioner's arguments: The clause drastically affects sliding options with retrospective effect, is untenable, and lacks jurisdiction, citing (2008) 3 SCC 512 and (2013) 4 SCC 540. Revenue/State's arguments: There is no illegality in the clause; it is intended to avoid blockage and wastage of seats. Resigning from a seat is distinct from sliding, and the clause is consistent with Clause 17 of the earlier notification dated 23.02.2022, which the petitioner had participated in and joined a seat under.