IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 26642 of 2008 Between: Shaik Hala D/o.Shaik Mastan Vali R/o.Door No.25-2-18A,Bodelagudem Revarnai Post,Vizianagaram,rep.minor rep.by her father shaik Mastan Vali ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Dr.N.T.R.University of Health Sciences,Andhra Pradesh Vijayawada, Krishna District,rep.by its Registrar 2 Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Chairman L.B.Stadium,Hyderabad 3 Medical Council of India., rep.by its Secretary Pocket 14, Sector VIII,Dwaraka,Phase-I,New Delhi 4 V.Chaya Phani Nandini D/o.Not known Through N.T.R.University of Health Sciences Vijayawada .....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 to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in denying the seat in MBBS to the petitoner under sports quota under B.C.'B' category in Andhra Univeristy Area by assigning wrong priority of 88 in stead of priority rank of 76 and allotting the seat to the 4th respondent under BC-B category of Andhra University Area though she is not entilted fomparatively with the petitioner under sports quota as illegal, arbitrary, discrimination and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to allot seat in MBBS under BC-B category in Andhra University area to the petitoner under sports quota by taking in to consideration of the merit certificate issued by the AP Amateua Athletic Association and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.CHIDAMBARAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.D.V.NAGARJUNA BABU The Court made the following : HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.26642 of 2008 ORAL ORDER : The writ petitioner, being a minor represented by her father and natural guardian, filed this writ petition seeking a declaration that the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in denying her a seat in M.B.B.S. under Sports quota under BC ‘B’ category is arbitrary and illegal. The facts, in brief, are as under: The petitioner completed her Intermediate course with 89.8% marks and appeared for EAMCET-2008 and secured 15,691 rank in Medicine category. She belongs to BC ‘B’ community. She also participated in various sports and games and secured many Certificates and Medals from various organizations, both in School and College level, and thus, claims that she is entitled to admission into M.B.B.S. course under Sports quota. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.20, Youth Advancement, Tourism & Culture (Sports) Department, dated 03.05.2006, formulating certain guidelines for admission into Engineering, Medical, Agricultural and other Professional Courses under Sports quota from the academic year 2006-07. In Annexure-I appended to the said G.O., the list of sports and games that would be considered for the purpose of Sports quota are specified and in Annexure-II, the order of priorities under Sports quota is specified, making it clear that the same shall be followed for admission of eligible sports persons under Sports quota through Common Entrance Tests into all Professional courses in the State by Admission Authorities concerned from the academic year 2006-07 onwards. The writ petitioner, claimed that she had participated in Andhra Pradesh State Youth (Boys and Girls under 18 years), Junior Men and Women (under 20 years) Athletics Championship and Competitions conducted by the Guntur District Amateur Athletic Association on 19th and 20th May, 2007, and had secured second position in 100 mts. event in the Girls – 18 section and she was awarded a Silver Medal. Accordingly she was issued a Participation Certificate and a Merit Certificate by the Andhra Pradesh Amateur Athletic Association. The petitioner produced the said certificates before the 1st respondent-University in support of her claim for admission under Sports quota. In turn the 1st respondent-University sent the said certificates to the 2nd respondent-Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh for verification and also for giving priority ranking. The priority list of admission into MBBS/BDS Courses-2008 was placed in the internet on 26-04-2008 and the name of the petitioner was figured at Sl.No.32 and she was assigned the priority rank -88. Pursuant to the notification issued by the 1st respondent-University fixing the dates for counseling for admission into MBBS courses for the academic year 2008-09 under the Sports and Games Category, the petitioner appeared for the counseling on 29.11.2008. However, the petitioner’s candidature under Sports quota for MBBS was not considered and the seat under Sports quota was allotted to the 4th respondent herein in Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam who was assigned priority rank of 77 by the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents in denying the seat in MBBS to the petitioner under Sports quota the present writ petition has been filed. It is contended by the petitioner that the 2nd respondent-Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh while fixing the order of priority as required under G.O.Ms.No.20, dated.03-05-2006 committed an error in assigning the priority rank of 88 to the petitioner. It is alleged that the 2nd respondent while fixing the priority had ignored the merit certificate (No.129) issued to the petitioner by the Andhra Pradesh Amateur Athletic Association certifying that she secured second place in 100 Mtr event for girls-18 and the priority rank of 88 was given only on the basis of the participation certificate (No.233) issued by the Andhra Pradesh Amateur Athletic Association. It is contended that had the 2nd respondent taken into consideration the merit certificate issued to her by Andhra Pradesh Amateur Athletic Association she would have been assigned the priority of 76 under category XV specified in Annexure-II to G.O.Ms.No.20 dated.03-05-2006. Thus according to the petitioner the seat in MBBS ought to have been allotted to her under Sports quota since her priority rank would have been higher to the priority rank given to the 4th respondent. On behalf of the 2nd respondent-Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh, a counter-affidavit is filed stating that the petitioner was allowed priority of 88 basing on the participation certificate and she was not entitled to priority No.76 which can be assigned to medal winners in Inter- district for Juniors but not Youth. It is further stated that the 4th respondent was rightly given priority of 77 basing on the 3rd place medal won by her in the Junior Inter-District Aquatic Championship Certificate. Thus it is contended that the priorities were given strictly in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.20 dated.03.05.2006 and the allegation of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent committed an error in not considering the merit certificate issued to the petitioner, was not correct. A separate counter-affidavit has been filed by the 4th respondent stating that since she secured 3rd place in Inter-District Aquatic for Juniors she was rightly given the priority of 77. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. As noticed above G.O.Ms.No.20 dated.03-05-2006 was issued formulating the guidelines for admission into Engineering, Medical, Agricultural and other professional courses under Sports quota from the academic year 2006-07 onwards. Annexure-I of the said G.O.Ms.No.20 dated.03-05-2006 specified the list of Sports and Games to be taken into consideration whereas Annexure-II prescribed the procedure for fixing the order of priorities. A perusal of Annexure-II shows that different categories were prescribed for fixing the order of priorities on the basis of the Sports and Games conducted at International, National, State and District Levels. Similarly it appears that the categories have also been divided with reference to different groups such as Youth, Juniors and Sub-juniors etc., It is true that the writ petitioner secured 2nd place in 100 meters event in the competitions conducted by the Guntur District Amateur Athletics Association and was awarded a Silver medal. However, it is clear from the certificate issued to her that the said Championship conducted by Guntur District Amateur Athletics Association on 19th and 20th May 2007 was for Youth and Juniors. Such Championships for Youth and Juniors are included in Category XVI of Annexure-II for which only the participation has to be taken into consideration. Accordingly the petitioner was assigned the priority No.88 falling under category XVI. Her claim for the priority No.76 on the basis of her securing 2nd place in the Championship/competition held on 19/20-05-1997 on the face of it appears to be untenable since priority 76 under category XV is confined only for the Inter-district competitions held for juniors. Admittedly the 4th respondent herein secured a 3rd place in Inter- district of Aquatics held for Juniors. Hence she was assigned priority 77 under category XV. Hence the rankings assigned to the petitioner and the respondent No.4 strictly in accordance with the modalities prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.20 dated.03-05-2006 cannot be found fault with. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the classification into youth group and junior group has no reasonable basis and since both the petitioner and the 4th respondent are below 18 years, consideration of their claims under different groups amounts to arbitrary exercise of power. While drawing the attention of this Court to the dictionary meaning of “Juniors” and “Youth” the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the categories of Youth and Juniors are one and the same and therefore the action of the 2nd respondent in not considering the petitioner’s case under category XV as against priority No.76 is arbitrary and illegal. I am not inclined to go into such a larger issue since as on today the procedure to be followed for fixing the priorities for admission into Engineering, Medical, Agricultural and other Professional Courses under Sports quota is governed by G.O.Ms.No.20 dated.03-05-2006 in which different categories have been specified. Admittedly the petitioner’s case did not fit into priority No.76 of category XV since the merit certificate was issued to her in the Inter-district Championship for Youth and Juniors. Whether the classification drawn by the 2nd respondent between the groups of Youth and Juniors while fixing the order of priorities under G.O.Ms.No.20 dated.03-05-2006 is reasonable or not is a question which cannot be gone into in this writ petition since all the parties to this writ petition are bound by G.O.Ms.No.20 dated.03.05.2006 and the validity of the same is not questioned on any ground what-so-ever. Further the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-University submits that the admissions into 1st year MBBS course for the academic year 2008-09 were already closed in September-2008 and it is not permissible to make any fresh admissions. Hence on that ground also the claim of the petitioner for admission into MBBS for the academic year 2008-09 does not deserve consideration at this stage. For the aforesaid reasons the interference by this Court is not warranted. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. --------------- G.ROHINI,J 20th March 2009 *TSNR