IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 147 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 29/09/2008 in WP NO : 31 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Dr.N.T.R.University of Health Sciences, represented by its Registrar, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, health, Medical & Family Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 Pratima Institute of Medical sciences, represented by its Principal, Nagunur, karimnagar District. .... APPELLANTS AND 1 V.Ramgopal Rao, s/o late Vasantha Rao, R/o Central Excise Colony, Amberpet, Hyderabad. 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, health, Medical & Family Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 Pratima Institute of medical Sciences, Rep by its Principal , Nagunur, Karimnagar District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.D.V.NAGARJUNA BABU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH & FAMI.WELFARE The Division Bench of this Judgment follows Court made the following : on 2nd page THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 147 of 2009 AND WRIT PETITION No. 3 1 OF 2008 COMMON JUDGMENT : (Per the Hon’ble Smt.Justice T. Meena Kumari ) The writ appeal is filed against the order dated 29-9-2008 passed in WPMP.No. 27588 of 2008 in WP.No. 31 of 2008 by the learned single Judge, whereby the learned single Judge passed interim direction to the first respondent therein to declare the result of the petitioner so as to enable him to pursue the second year course, if he is other wise eligible. 2. The main relief which is sought in the above writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the first respondent in cancelling the admission of the petitioner under ‘B’ category in third respondent college for the academic year 2007-08 vide Lr.No.5146/MBBS- BDS/EA1/UTS/2007, dated 20-12-2007 and the consequential notice dated 29-12-2007 issued by the third respondent as illegal, arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents to approve the admission of the petitioner and to pass such other suitable orders as this court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 3. When the matter came up for hearing, both the learned counsel requested that the main writ petition can be taken up for hearing. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in MRIDUL DHAR (Minor) & ANR. V/s. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS [1], and it is contended that since the management has exceeded its permissible quota in sports category for the academic year 2007-08, the candidature of the writ petitioner cannot be regularized unless the management gives an undertaking to forego one seat from their quota for the next academic year 2008-09. The learned counsel also placed reliance upon the direction 11 in para No.35 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred supra-1. Para No.35: direction No.11, which reads as hereunder: If any private medical college in a given academic year for any reason grants admission in its management quota in excess of its prescribed quota, the management quota for the next academic year shall stand reduced so as to set off the effect of excess admission in the management quota in the previous year. 5. The learned counsel representing the management has now filed an undertaking that the third respondent was given permission for 150 seats by the Government of India for academic year 2007-08 out of 150 seats 105 seats are to be filled by the University under “A” and “B” category. It is also stated that in the notification dated 14-9-2007 issued by the appellant university for filling up of 105 seats in our college no seat was earmarked under sports quota. Since the University had filled only 104 seats and the last date for admission was 30-9-2007, the college has filled up the un-filled “B” category seat by the first respondent by collecting the “B” category fee only. It is stated that the University had never informed us that one seat in “B” category is reserved under sports quota in their college. The interim order passed by the learned single Judge in WPMP.No. 26550 of 2007 in WP.NO.20527 of 2007 dated 28-9-2007 directing the University not to fill up the seats under sports quota was communicated only on 06-10-2007. It is further submitted that the Government had issued GO.Rt.No.408, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (E-1) Department, dated 21-3-2008 has ratified the action of the private managements in having filled the seats left vacant in MBBS and BDS course in “A” and “B” categories, except sports quota vacancies and covered by court orders. It is also stated that since the college was never informed that one sports quota seat is reserved in their college, they have filled up the vacant seat in “B” category. The said undertaking further specifically states that it shall abide by the orders passed in the main writ petition and surrender one seat to the University, if sports quota seat is directed to be filled in the next academic year. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Govt. Pleader for Medical Health and Family Welfare, Sri Ravi Kondaveeti, the learned counsel for the third respondent and Sri J.Ramachandra Rao. 7. After hearing both sides, it appears that since the undertaking furnished by the third respondent is in terms of direction 11 of para 35 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred supra-1, we deem it appropriate to record the said undertaking and dispose of the main writ petition as well as writ appeal with the following directions: the impugned order of the appellant cancelling the admission of the writ petitioner under “B” category in the third respondent management for the academic year 2007-08 vide impugned order dated 20-12-2007 and consequential notice of the management dated 29-12-2007 shall stand set aside in view of the undertaking as recorded above. 8. In view of the undertaking filed by the third respondent in terms of direction 11 of para 35 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred supra-1, the writ petition as well as the writ appeal are accordingly disposed of. No costs. _________________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI. _____________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZUL PURKAR. 29-4-2009 I s L [1] ) (2005) 2 Supreme Court Cases-65