IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT: HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.1439 of 2009 Between: P. Venkata Lakshmi Manasa D/o. Sri P.S. Raghunath …. Appellant AND Andhra University, Rep. by its Registrar, Visakhapatnam And another …. Respondents HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.1439 of 2009 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This Writ Appeal is filed by the appellant P. Venkata Lakshmi Manasa against the order dated 10-11-2009 in W.P. No.24147 of 2009 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court. 2. The appellant herein filed the writ petition questioning the action of the respondents in giving admissions in ‘M. Pharmacy’ under sponsored quota without insisting for the requisite experience as advertised by them and thereby depriving her from applying to the said course, though she has merit and sought a consequential direction to the respondents to provide her a seat in the said course under the sponsored quota. 3. The learned single Judge after hearing both sides observed that the petitioner did not possess the stipulated qualifications for a sponsored candidate and accordingly, dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned single Judge, appellant filed the present appeal. 4. The main contention of the appellant / writ petitioner before us is that her colleagues, who had three months of work experience, have been given admission in M. Pharmacy under the sponsored quota, whereas she was denied admission under that particular quota. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the respondents have given admission to the other two candidates, who have the same qualification and work experience as that of the petitioner, by relaxing the rules. He further submitted that the appellant did not apply under that particular quota, as the respondents in their advertisement particularly insisted for two years of work experience. 6. Under the above circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondents have given admissions to the other two candidates by relaxing the rules, cannot be accepted at this stage, as the appellant has not even applied for admission in the sponsored quota, as advertised in the Newspaper. 7. Hence, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ T. MEENA KUMARI, J ________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J February 10, 2010. KTL