THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17717 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner appeared in EAMCET conducted for the academic year 2009-2010 and was assigned the rank of 4553. Initially he was made an attempt to get admission into MBBS course, that, however, did not fructified. Therefore, he has chosen to apply for admission to B.V.Sc & A.H/B.Sc (Agriculture) B.Sc (Hons) Horticulture course. He is a resident of a Village in Kurnool District. He sent application through registered post on 24.07.2009 to the first respondent. The last date for submission of application was 31.07.2009. The list of the candidates who applied for admission to the said course was displayed on 17.08.2009. The name of the petitioner was, no doubt, shown, but it was endorsed that his candidature cannot be considered on the ground that the application was received after the due date. The counselling took place on 26.08.2009. The petitioner approached this Court on 24.08.2009 itself. The petitioner states that the action of the respondents in not considering his candidature is arbitrary and illegal. The respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit. It is stated that though the petitioner may have dispatched his application on 24.07.2009, it reached the office of the first respondent only on 04.08.2009 i.e., four days after the stipulated date. After referring to the relevant provisions of the prospectus, they contend that the case of the petitioner cannot be considered. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. On finding that he cannot get admission into the first year MBBS course, the petitioner began his efforts to seek admission in B.V.Sc & A.H/B.Sc (Agriculture) B.Sc (Hons) Horticulture course. The last date for submission of application was 31.07.2009. He sent his application on 24.07.2009 itself through speed post. It is rather unfortunate that a premier department of Government of India has taken almost 10 days to deliver a postal cover from Kurnool to Hyderabad, that too, through the medium of speed post. Irrespective of the reasons for the delay in receiving the application, had the application reached the respondents after the admissions were finalized, hardly anything could have been done. The admissions are made through an exercise of counselling that took place on 26.08.2009. The list of candidates who would be considered in it was displayed on 17.08.2009. The first respondent received the application of the petitioner almost, two weeks before that. Therefore, no prejudice would have resulted to any one had the name of the petitioner been included in the list displayed on 17.08.2009. Hyper technicalities cannot be permitted to defeat the valuable rights that accrue to the candidates. It is by no means easy for a student to obtain a meritorious rank in EAMCET. No default or indifference can be attributed to the petitioner. The only fault, if at all, on his part was to rely upon efficacy of the postal department. It has already been pointed out that no prejudice was caused either to University or any candidate on account of slight delay in arrival of the application. While entertaining the writ petition on 25.08.2009, this Court passed an interim order directing that a seat be reserved for the petitioner. It is stated that the seat is still vacant. Hence, the writ petition is allowed. It is directed that the respondents shall admit the petitioner against the seat that was earmarked for him. It is made clear that it shall not be treated as precedent or basis to reopen the admissions which have already been finalized. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 23rd October, 2009 GHN