IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT APPEAL No.480 OF 2011 Between: Dr. Radhika BJ … Appellant V/s. Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences, Punjagutta, Hyderabad, Represented by its Director & 2-Ors. … Respondents Counsel for the Appellant : Sri K.Srinivas Murthy Ms. V.Uma Devi Counsel for the Respondents : Sri Gunaranjam The Court made the following : (Judgment follows next page) THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR JUDGMENT: ( per THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMAD) 1. Writ Petition No. 15431 of 2011, dismissal of which by order dated 28.06.2011 is assailed in the present Writ Appeal, was filed by the appellant herein seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the letter dated 4.2.2011 issued by the first respondent informing the appellant that there shall be no admission in respect of academic session beyond 30th September for the Super Specialty courses in terms of the order dated 29.12.2010 passed in W.P.No. 29109 of 2010 by this Court and the Apex Court and requiring her to collect back the bond, fee and original certificates as illegal and bad. 2. The appellant passed M.D. (General Medicine) from Andhra Medical College in 2009. She appeared for the entrance examination for admission into three years super specialty medical course in Cardiology offered by the first respondent and also conducted the written examination and the appellant secured 7th rank. It is her case that inspite of instructions from the third respondent, the first respondent proceeded to fill up the seats by reserving 50% of the seats for in-service candidates in super specialty courses and the Executive Council of the first respondent has resolved to convert the in-service candidates into open category and published the provisional list of candidates for admission on 30.8.2010 fixing the counseling date as 6.9.2010. Aggrieved by the same, some of the candidates who appeared for the entrance filed WP No. 21877 of 2010 and Batch, wherein an interim order dated 3.9.2010 came to be passed to the effect that any order passed shall be subject to the result of the writ petitions. The above batch of writ petitions were allowed on 30.9.2010 setting aside the notification dated 10.5.2010 issued by the first respondent earmarking seats for in-service candidates in super specialty courses and consequently to consider the case of the petitioner for admission into the resultant vacancies in accordance with the merit list prepared as per the entrance test and, therefore, the petitioner, who has secured 7th rank in the Cardiology Branch, is entitled for admission into the super specialty course. Consequently, the first respondent issued notification dated 15.10.2010 advising the appellant and others to pay fee, submit bond, and original certificates. The first respondent addressed letter to the third respondent seeking extension of time through its letter dated 1.11.2010, which was negatived by the third respondent stating that there is no provision for relaxation of time limit beyond 30th September for admission into super specialty courses and thus declined admission to the appellant and others, which was assailed by the appellant and two others in W.P.No. 29109 of 2010, wherein on 23.11.2010, an interim order was passed permitting the appellant and others to attend the classes apart from observing that the order shall not preclude the third respondent of imposing of heavy penalty in the range of Rs.10.00 lakhs to Rs.25.00 lakhs for the delay in admissions. The said order was challenged by the first respondent in W.A. No. 1108 of 2010, which was disposed of along with W.P. No. 29109 of 2010 by common order dated 29.12.2010, dismissing the writ petition holding that the High Court cannot issue a direction to admit a student into the PG Super Specialty course beyond 30.9.2010, in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in Mridula Dhar Vs. Union of India. This judgment was appealed against by one Dr. Mamatha Reddy, before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 5490-5491 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated 29.4.2011 directed the first respondent and others to admit the petitioner therein to Super Specialty course of DM Cardiology and to undergo actual course from 2011-2012 and her admission for the year 2010-2011 of 2011-2012 shall be subject to the final decision of the Supreme Court. While so, on the strength of the letter dated 2.11.2010 of the third respondent, the first respondent addressed a letter dated 4.2.2011 to the appellant stating that there shall be no admission in super specialty courses beyond 30th September and required the appellant to collect the bond, fee and original certificate. The petitioner contends that she is similarly situated to that of Dr.Mamatha Reddy and, as such, the order dated 29.4.2011in SLP (C) No. 5490-5491 of 2011 passed by the Supreme Court binds the respondents and she is entitled to be admitted to the super specialty course for 2011-2012. 3. Heard Ms. Uma Devi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 4. There is no dispute with regard to the chequered events. It is true that the Apex Court in SLP(C) No. 5490-5491 of 2011 has directed the respondents to admit the appellant therein i.e., Dr. Mamatha Reddy to the course of DM Cardiology and to undergo the actual course from 2011-12 onwards. It is not the case of the appellant herein that the condition that there shall be no admission of students in Super Specialty courses beyond 30th September was held to be invalid by the Supreme Court. Hence, the very letter dated 2.11.2010 issued by the third respondent that there shall be no admission to super specialty courses beyond 30th September is valid and, therefore, the action of the respondents in informing the petitioner that there is no scope of finalizing the admission process, in our considered view, cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. In the premise above, we do not see any legal infirmity in the order impugned. 5. Consequently, the writ appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed at the S.R. stage. No order as to costs. _____________________________​__ Justice Ghulam Mohammed ______________________ Justice K.G.Shankar July 1st , 2011 I s L N B : Furnish CC by 04-7-2011. B/o. I s L THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR WA .No. 480 OF 2011 ORDER : Per the Hon’ble Mr.Justice Ghulam Mohammed Circulation No. Date:01-07-2011 Court Master: I s L Computer No. 43