IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13913 of 2006 Between: 1 Dr. Ch. Upendra Reddy, S/o.Ch. Sanjeeva Reddy, HT.No. 4176, Govt Service, Street No.3 Plot No.6, kakatiya Nagar, Hyd-7. 2 Dr.K.Suresh Reddy, S/o. K. Krishna Reddy, Government Service, 103, C-Block P.B.R. Estates, Nallakunta, Hyderabad-44. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The State of A.P., rep. by its the Prl., Secretary, Heath Medical & Family Welfare Dept., Secretariat, Hyd. 2 N.T.R. Universities of Health Sciences, Govt of A.P., Vijayawada-500008, rep. by its Register. 3 The Central Council of Hameopathy, Institutional Ara, Janakapuri, New Delhi-110058, rep. byits Secretary. 4 The Commissioner, Department of Ayush, Govt of A.P., Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or order or a direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents for not selecting the petitioners for MD ( Homeo), who got highest marks in BHMS and eligible for the PG Courses and further declare the clause 3.5 of the Prospects did not authorize the University to fill up the seats to general candidate from the seats of in-service candidates for MD ( Homeo) seat as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, contrary to the Indian Homoeopathy Counsel Act, violative of Art 14, 21 of the constitution of India, and discriminative in nature and consequently directing the respondents to allot MD (Homeo) Seats to the Petitioners in any of the subjects for the year 2006-07 forthwith by taking their marks in BHMS in the interest of justice.. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.V.RAJA RAAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH & FAMI.WELFARE The Court made the following : ORDER No representation on behalf of the petitioners. It indicates that the petitioners are not interested in pursuing the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs. __________ 13-08-2008 rkk