IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.8203 of 2009 Between: M.Rekha ..... PETITIONER AND Dr.NTR University of Health Sciences, A.P., at Vijayawada rep.by its Registrar and another. .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: The petitioner claims that she belongs to Scheduled Tribe Community. She states that she appeared for EAMCET-2003 and got seat in Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medical and Surgery (BAMS) in second respondent-College. She further states that she appeared for the annual examinations and passed five subjects, but failed in one subject, namely, Padartha Vignana. Thereafter, the petitioner claims to have made an application to the first respondent seeking permission to appear for the ensuing examinations for the left over paper. Thereupon, the first respondent directed the petitioner to appear before the Medical Board on 09.03.2009 along with medical certificates, pursuant to which, the petitioner claims to have appeared before the Medical Board. She states that she got married on 14.12.2006 and applied for maternity leave in the year 2007. While so, it is the grievance of the petitioner that the first respondent issued the impugned letter, dated 16.03.2009, informing the second respondent-College that the case of the petitioner is rejected as the reasons stated by her before the Medical Board are not genuine as per the report of the Medical Report. Hence, she filed the present writ petition seeking appropriate directions. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent-University. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that she failed in Padartha Vignana of I year BAMS for three times. As per the Rules, to appear for the exam for the fourth time, she has to obtain the permission of the Vice-Chancellor of the University. The petitioner claims to have made an application to the first respondent in this regard, pursuant to which, the first respondent directed the petitioner to appear before the Medical Board, which in turn rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that the reasons stated by her are not genuine. At the hearing, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Medical Board has simply rejected the medical certificates produced by the petitioner stating that the reasons put forth by the petitioner are not genuine, without assigning any reasons. At that stage, this Court directed the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent to produce the report of the Medical Board, which examined the petitioner, to know whether any reasons were assigned by the Medical Board for rejection of the case of the petitioner. Accordingly, the learned Standing Counsel has produced the report of the Medical Board before this Court. A perusal of the same shows that except stating “reasons not genuine”, the Medical Board has not considered the medical certificate produced by the petitioner in right perspective. The petitioner along with the writ petition has filed a Xerox copy of the medical certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon, RMO, Govt.District Head Quarter Hospital, Nizamabad. A perusal of the same would disclose that the petitioner at the relevant point of time was suffering from pregnancy induced and hyper-tension. It is the specific case of the petitioner that because of that reason, she could not appear for the examination. However, the report of the Medical Board merely states in the column relating to ‘Illness mentioned in the Medical Certificate already submitted’ as “no evidence of reasonable cause” and further in the column relating to ‘Remarks of the Committee’ as “reasons not genuine”, without assigning any reasons. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: The first respondent-University is directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner once again in the light of the medical certificate produced by the petitioner and take appropriate decision by passing speaking order, expeditiously, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date:13.10.2009 Note: Issue CC in two days. (b/o) VGB