IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 13883 of 2009 Between: Bijjiga Siphorakrupalini, D/o. B. Jyothikumar, R/o. B.N. Reddy Nagar, Hyderabad being minor, Rep by her Nex friend/natural guardian- father, B. Jyothikumar, S/o. B. Manikyamj, aged 54 years, R/o. Plot No. 407, B.N. Reddy Nagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Chief Secretary, Secretairat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 Principal Secretary, Medical and Health Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secrwetariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 3 Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 4 Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education, Rep by its Secretary, Op : Mahavirmarg, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. 5 The Convenor, EAMCET-2009, SIT Building, Cellar Portion, J.N.T. Universityh, Hyderabad, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. 6 Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, Rep by its Registrar, Vijayawada, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh. 7 Medical Council of India, Sector - 8, Pocket - 14, Dwarka - I, New Delhi - 77, Rep by its Secretary .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue any writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents, particularly the respondent No. 3 in prescribing minimum age limit of completion of 17 years of age as on 31st December of the year of admission as eligibility to appear for EAMCET - 2009, as mentioned in II.3A Note(ii) and II 3B (ii) of instruction Booklet for Entrance Test relating to professional courses (EAMCET-2009) and also Rule 8 Note(2) and Note 1 to 3 of A.P. Regulation of Admission of Student into Medical Colleges/Government Dental Colleges) Rules 1985 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional as violative of Articles 14, 21, 41 and 46 of the constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to prosecute the professional course of M.B.B.S. by participating in counseling and to choose a course & college of her choice as per the eligiblity based on the rank in the EAMCET, in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR D.V.N.ACHARYA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in prescribing minimum age limit of completion of 17 years as on 31st December of the year of admission as eligibility to appear for EAMCET-2009 as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to set aside the same and direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to prosecute the professional course of MBBS by participating in counseling. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent University and the learned Government Pleader for Higher Education appearing for the respondents 1 to 3; and perused the material on record. As per 4 (1) of the Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education 1997, a candidate must have completed 17 years on or before first day of July of the year commencing the prescribed academic session of the said course. The said Regulations are made by the Medical Council of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 with the previous sanction of the Central Government. In consonance with the said statutory requirement, the State Government made Rules in exercise of Rule making power under A.P. Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983. Merely because the petitioner could not satisfy the said requirement, the statutory rule which is uniformly being applied to all the candidates cannot be declared as arbitrary or illegal. Hence W.P. is dismissed. However, this shall not preclude the petitioner to seek relaxation from the competent authority. If any such request is made, the same be considered in accordance with law and appropriate orders be passed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of such application. No costs. _______________ G.ROHINI,J July 21, 2009. Ivd