Nakka Sahithi vs. Government Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to the return of her original certificates, which were submitted in the first round of counseling before the 5th respondent-College. This relief is contingent upon the petitioner complying with Rule 6(q) of the 2007 Rules, as notified by G.O.Ms.No.71 dated 15.07.2019. The petitioner must pay the specified discontinuation fee of Rs. 3,00,000/- and the applicable GST to the 4th respondent-University. Proof of payment is also required for further action. Recognizing the time constraint for submitting certificates to the seventh respondent by August 31, 2019, the Court directed the seventh respondent to accept attested photostat copies of the certificates. However, this interim arrangement does not absolve the petitioner from fulfilling the payment obligation. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, who gained admission to a medical college (5th respondent), subsequently secured a seat in AIMS, Mangalagiri. To withdraw from the initial course and obtain her original certificates, the petitioner was required to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- and applicable GST, as stipulated by G.O.Ms.No.71 dated 15.07.2019, which amended Rule 6(q) of the Andhra Pradesh Un-aided Minority Professional Institutions (Regulation of Admissions into Under Graduate Medical and Dental Professional Courses) Rules, 2007. The petitioner sought the return of her original certificates from the 5th respondent, held by the 4th respondent-University. The last date for submitting certificates to the seventh respondent was August 31, 2019.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the return of her original certificates upon compliance with the conditions stipulated in Rule 6(q) of the 2007 Rules, as amended by G.O.Ms.No.71 dated 15.07.2019, which mandates payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- and applicable GST for withdrawal from the course after the closure of admissions? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner implicitly argues for the return of her certificates by filing the writ petition, seeking relief based on the University's stance that compliance with the rule would entitle her to the relief. Revenue/State's contention: The learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent-University submitted that if the petitioner complies with the condition of paying Rs. 3,00,000/- and applicable GST as per Rule 6(q), she is entitled to the relief sought. The Government Pleader for Medical Health and Family Welfare and the Standing Counsel for Dr.NTR University of Health Sciences also appeared.