Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
B.Lalith Kalyan, S/O.Chandra Sekhar, ... vs 1.Dr. N.T.R. University Of Health ... on 9 April, 2018
Author: T.Amarnath Goud
Bench: T.Amarnath Goud
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND HONBLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD
Writ Petition No.2688 of 2018
09-4-2018
B.Lalith Kalyan, S/o.Chandra Sekhar, Aged about 20 years, Occ: Student, R/o.1-4/3-8, Post Office Lane, Kamakoti Nagar, Vijay
1.Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, Rep. by its Vice Chancellor, Ring Road, Vijayawada, Krishna District, Andhra Pra
2. The Registrar, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada-520 008, Krishna District, A.P.3. The P.E.S. Institute o
Research, Rep. by its Principal, Kuppam, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh Respondents
Counsel for Petitioner:Mr. A.Bhaskarachari
Counsel for Respondents 1&2: Mr. Taddi Nageswara Rao,
Standing Counsel
Counsel for Respondent No.3: ---
<Gist:
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
Nil.
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN
AND
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD
Writ Petition No.2688 of 2018
Order: (per V.Ramasubramanian, J.)
The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition
challenging the cancellation of admission granted to him into
MBBS Course during the Academic Year 2015-16.
2. Heard Mr. A.Bhaskarachari, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Taddi Nageswara Rao, learned Standing
Counsel appearing for the University.
3. The petitioner studied up to 10th standard in two
different schools in Vijayawada. He did his Intermediate (+2)
also at Vijayawada. After completion of Intermediate, the
petitioner applied for EAMCET-2015 and he secured a rank of
2530. The petitioner does not belong to any reserved category.
4. In the 3rd phase of counselling held in August 2015,
the petitioner was allotted to the 3rd respondent-College for
admission to the MBBS Course for the Academic Year
2015-16 and the petitioner joined the college on 01-10-2015.
5. In April 2016, the 2nd respondent-University sent
a communication to the District Educational Officer,
Anantapur, calling upon him to verify whether the petitioner
studied in Sri Vivekananda EM High School, Uravakonda,
Anantapur, from 6th standard to 9th standard during the
period 2007-08 to 2011-12. This clarification was sought on
the basis that the place where the petitioner actually studied
up to 10th standard viz., Vijayawada came within the Andhra
University Area and that he produced a bogus certificate as
though he studied in Anantapur District coming within
Sri Venkateswara University Region and got admission to the
3rd respondent-College on the basis of the bogus Study
Certificate.
6. In response to the letter dated 20-4-2016 issued by
the Registrar of the University, the District Educational
Officer, Anantapur, conducted an enquiry and submitted
a report. The report confirmed that the petitioner was not
a student of the school in Anantapur.
7. On the basis of the said report dated 14-6-2016 of
the District Educational Officer, Anantapur, the Vice
Chancellor of the University passed an order dated
27-6-2016 placing the petitioner under suspension from
pursuing the MBBS Course until further orders. The said
order of suspension was challenged by the petitioner by way
of a writ petition in W.P.No.22871 of 2016. After ordering
notice in the writ petition on 01-8-2016, this Court passed
an interim order on 09-8-2016 permitting the petitioner to
appear for the examination. The interim order passed by this
Court was to the following effect:
As we have seen in yet another case in
W.P.No.24644 of 2016, this is also a case where the
petitioner got his application registered on 25-9-2015.
The receipt issued to him at 17.35 hours discloses that the
local area is recorded as Andhra University. But the next
receipt issued at 18.45 hours discloses the local area as
SVU. Therefore, something appears to have happened
between 17.35 hours and 18.45 hours. The logical inference
is that something had happened in the counselling centre.
Since this could not have happened without any assistance,
if not abetment on the part of the person-in-charge of the
counselling centre, we issue an interim direction to the
respondents to permit the petitioner to take the remaining
examinations (practical). However, the results shall not be
published, until further orders.
8. Thereafter, the writ petition W.P.No.22871 of 2016
itself was disposed of by a final order dated 09-6-2017.
Paragraphs-6 to 9 of the judgment dated 09-6-2017 passed in
W.P.No.22871 of 2016 read as follows:
6. It is seen from the impugned order that the
impugned order was supposed to be a temporary measure.
The impugned order states that the petitioner is suspended
from pursuing the course of study until further orders.
A period of nearly 9 months has passed from the date of the
interim order.
7. It is claimed that a police complaint was lodged
and Crime No.34 of 2016 of Gudipalli P.S., Chittoor
District, has been registered.
8. In such circumstances, we are of the considered
view that the suspension order cannot continue without
any end. Obviously, the impugned order dated 27-6-2016
was passed without putting the petitioner on notice and
without affording any opportunity. The University has not
chosen to put the petitioner on notice and give
an opportunity, probably on account of the fact that the
suspension was intended to be only a temporary affair. But,
this temporary suspension has now prolonged for nearly
9 months.
9. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed, the
impugned order is set aside and the petitioner may be
permitted to pursue the course of study, without prejudice
to the right of the respondents to proceed, in accordance
with law.
9. Pursuant to the said order, the Vice Chancellor
issued a show cause notice dated 01-9-2017 calling upon the
petitioner to show cause why the admission granted to him
during the Academic Year 2015-16 should not be cancelled.
The petitioner filed a reply on 10-9-2017.
10. However, the petitioner was not permitted to pursue
the course of study and was not allowed to attend the classes.
Therefore, he came up with a 2nd writ petition in W.P.No.
34963 of 2017 seeking a direction to allow him to continue
the course of study. In the said writ petition,
an interim order was passed on 26-10-2017 directing the
University to permit the petitioner to appear for the
supplementary examination of the year 2017. The petitioner
was also directed to cooperate with the enquiry.
11. Thereafter, the University appointed one
Dr. Sasank, Principal of Siddhartha Medical College,
Vijayawada, as an enquiry officer. The Enquiry Officer
conducted an enquiry, examined witnesses and eventually
came to the conclusion that the petitioner produced two
Study Certificates, one of 10th Class and one of Classes 6 to 9
which were proved to be bogus and that he could not have
gained admission, but for the bogus certificates.
12. On the basis of the said enquiry report, the Vice
Chancellor passed a fresh order dated 11-01-2018 cancelling
the admission granted to the petitioner. Challenging the said
order, the petitioner has come back to this Court with the
above writ petition, which is the 3rd writ petition in
succession. In other words, the future of the petitioner is
actually tossed between Law and Medicine in the past nearly
two years.
13. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
forcefully contended that the enquiry report was completely
perverse and that without connecting the petitioner to the
disputed Study Certificate, the petitioners future has been
annihilated.
14. Before proceeding further, it must be recorded that
a criminal complaint has also been registered against the
petitioner for producing a bogus Study Certificate and
securing admission to the MBBS Course. Therefore, we are
obliged to tread very cautiously on a delicate path, lest the
entire future of a reasonably bright young boy of 20 years
would get jeopardised.
15. If we carefully analyse the pleadings on hand, it is
seen that there is no dispute from the petitioner about the
following facts viz.,
(i) that he studied from Classes 1 to 10 at Vijayawada,
(ii) that as a consequence, he belonged to the Andhra
University Area (AU Area),
(iii) that he secured a rank of 2530 in EAMCET-2015,
(iv) that he belongs to the Open Category and
(v) that he gained admission into a college that falls
within Sri Venkateswara University Area (SVU Area).
16. What follows out of the above facts as admitted by
the petitioner in his own Affidavit, is that the petitioner could
have either secured admission under the 85% quota reserved
for local candidates in the Andhra University Area or under
the 15% quota available for all candidates in the SVU Area
irrespective of the local area to which the petitioner belonged.
The positive case of the University, about which the petitioner
has no dispute, is that the last candidate belonging to the
Open Category (Male) who secured admission in the Andhra
University Area had secured a rank of 1885. Therefore, the
petitioner could not have gained admission to a college
located within the AU Area under the 85% quota reserved for
local candidates of that area. Since he is a local candidate of
AU Area even on his own admission, he could not have
secured admission under the 15% quota thrown open to
candidates of all areas in the AU Area, as the cut-off for Open
Category was higher. The last rank for Open Category (Male)
was 1739. Therefore, there can be no dispute about the fact
that the petitioner could not have secured admission either as
a local candidate or as a non-local candidate in any of the
colleges located within the AU Area.
17. That takes us to the next question as to whether the
petitioner could have secured admission as a non-local
candidate available for Open Category under the 15% quota
in SVU Area. According to the University, the last of the
candidates belonging to Open Category (Male) who secured
admission as a non-local in SVU Area within the 15% quota
available for Open Categories, had secured a higher rank
than the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner did not secure
and could not have secured admission under the
15% quota available for non-locals in SVU Area. If that be so,
the controversy gets reduced only to one last question viz.,
as to how the petitioner secured admission under the
85% quota available for local candidates in SVU Area.
According to the respondents, the answer to this last question
lies in the Study Certificate available with them on record,
to the effect as though the petitioner studied in
Sri Vivekananda EM High School, Uravakonda, Anantapur
and that but for this Certificate, the petitioner could not have
been allotted a seat in SVU Area.
18. The petitioner feigns ignorance of the Study
Certificate relied upon by the respondents. According to the
petitioner, he produced a Study Certificate that showed him
to have studied up to 10th standard in Vijayawada. In other
words, it is a case of total denial by the petitioner, of the
production of any bogus certificate.
19. As we have pointed out at the threshold, we do not
wish to get into the question whether the petitioner actually
produced a bogus Study Certificate and gained admission.
If we go into it and record a finding, the fate of the petitioner
in the criminal case will get completely sealed and we do not
wish to do that. Let us proceed on the presumption, by giving
the benefit of doubt to the petitioner that he did not produce
a bogus certificate and gained admission.
20. But even then, the fact remains that the petitioner
could not have gained admission to the 3rd respondent-
College, with the certificates that he actually produced and
the score and rank that he had secured. The admission
granted to the petitioner to the 3rd respondent-College, in any
case, cannot be sustained as he did not come within the cut-
off for admission in SVU Area. Therefore, the cancellation of
his admission cannot really be found fault with.
21. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended
that the impugned order was not passed on the basis that the
admission granted to the petitioner was erroneous. It is his
contention that even if the admission granted to the petitioner
was erroneous, the petitioner was not at fault and that
therefore his admission cannot be cancelled.
22. But we are not impressed with the said argument.
Rightly or wrongly, the Presidential Order, 1974 issued in
exercise of the powers conferred by Clauses (1) and (2) of
Article 371-D of the Constitution has created a reservation for
local candidates in the three local areas viz., Osmania
University Area (OU Area), Andhra University Area (AU Area)
and Sri Venkateswara University Area (SVU Area). This
reservation on the basis of domicile, is notwithstanding
anything contained in any other part of the Constitution
including Articles 14 and 16. Insofar as the States of
Telangana and Andhra Pradesh are concerned, this
reservation on the basis of domicile is akin to the reservation
for socially Backward Classes. Therefore, if somebody had
secured admission to an educational course, under the quota
reserved for a particular category (locals), despite not being
entitled, he or she will have to forgo the same. In the case on
hand, the petitioner could not have secured admission to the
3rd respondent-College coming within SVU Area, with the
score and rank he secured. Therefore, he is not entitled to
retain the benefit, irrespective of whether the benefit was
unlawfully gained by him or erroneously conferred upon him.
Therefore, we have no alternative except to dismiss the writ
petition, even on admitted facts that the petitioner could not
have got admission to the 3rd respondent-College.
The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ
petition shall stand closed. No costs.
___________________________
V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.
________________________ T.AMARNATH GOUD, J. 09th April, 2018.