IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO.420 OF 2011 DATED:27.6.2011 Between: Muppala Vijaya Rao … Appellant And M/s. University of Hyderabad Rep. by Registrar Central University P.O., Hyderabad and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO.420 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Nisar Ahmad Kakru) Writ Petition by the appellant – Assistant Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, filed against denial of admission to him to the M. Tech. (IT) course under the sponsored quota having been opposed by the University – respondent for a variety of tenable reasons, therefore, of no avail to the appellant, consequently this writ appeal. It is seen from the pleadings of the University that although the appellant had failed to apply in time, yet his case was placed before the Admission Committee which decided to call him for interview, accordingly interviewed on 16- 08-2010 and secured 8 out of 25 marks against the minimum percentage of 50% which comes to 12.5 out of 25 marks. It is in that background that the committee could not recommend him under the sponsored category. There is no denying by the appellant that he failed to obtain the requisite percentage but his contention is that had the respondent – University allowed him to write the written test, he could have obtained 50% marks in aggregate. What is the basis of his expectation need not detain us, because one of the conditions of the prospectus at page 57 of the paper book envisaging general information on admission of sponsored candidates, very specifically excludes the sponsored candidates from requirement of written test and provides for their interview only. Going by the rule position the contention is unsustainable. It is also contended that the appellant is a Scheduled Caste candidate therefore he is entitled to consideration under the reserved category. The contention is urged simply to be rejected because as per counter of the University 15% of seats are reserved against Scheduled Castes quota in each course but there is no quota for the sponsored category more so, the reservation rules have not been questioned. As a matter of fact indulgence of the Court is sought by the appellant on the basis of the prevalent rules which admittedly do not provide for any reservation for the sponsored quota. Viewed thus, we find no merit in this writ appeal. Dismissed. VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J NISAR AHMAD KAKRU, CJ 28-6-2011 B. Narsinga Rao