IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No. 5357 of 2009 Between: Mohammed Shamsuddin Junaid S/o.Mohd. Khaja Khutubuddin R/o.12-2-417/B/3/3, S.B.I. Colony, Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Secretary, A.P. State Council for Higher Education, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. 2 The Convener, EAMCET - 2008 Admissions, A.P. State Council for Higher Education, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. 3 The Principal, Pulla Reddy Institute of Technology, Wargal (V), Medak District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.1 in issuing the Letter Vide Lr.No. APSCHE/Secy/CETs/Feb, dated 26.02.2009, as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 3 to allow the petitioner to pursue the Aeronautical Engineering Course for the Academic year 2008-09. Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI H.SUDHAKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2: SRI C.SUDESH ANAND(SC FOR APSCHE) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.5357 OF 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the letter, dated 26.02.2009, issued by the 1st respondent-Secretary, A.P.State Council for Higher Education, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. It is the case of the petitioner that he appeared for EAMCET-2008 (Engineering) Examinations and secured a Rank of 173863 and later on joined in the 3rd respondent College under the Management Quota in the branch of Aeronautical Engineering by paying an amount of Rs.21,000/- to the 3rd respondent College, out of total fees of Rs.55,000/- for the said seat. While so, when he approached the 3rd respondent College to pay the balance fees, the Management of the 3rd respondent College did not accept the same stating that he was not admitted into their College and thereafter he was not allowed to attend the classes also. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner approached the Chairman of the 3rd respondent College and expressed his grievance, for which the Chairman directed him to get permission from the 2nd respondent- Convener, EAMCET-2008 Admissions. As per the said directions, the petitioner gave a representation to the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent was pleased to consider the said representation and made an endorsement on the representation requesting the Principal of the 3rd respondent College to accommodate the candidate and seek ratification if the vacancy still exists. Pursuant to the said endorsement, the 3rd respondent, while informing the petitioner that he would be accommodated in place of one P.Sachin Kumar, who took admission in their College in Aeronautical Engineering Branch and discontinued his studies by giving an undertaking that he will not continue his studies, directed the petitioner to get permission from the 1st respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that as per the advice of the 3rd respondent to get permission from the 1st respondent, he approached the 1st respondent and gave a representation seeking permission to accommodate him in the 3rd respondent College, but the 1st respondent issued the impugned letter dated 26.02.2009 declining to accord permission to the Management of the 3rd respondent College to fill up the vacant seat on the ground of delay. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submits that the Aeronautical Engineering Course for the academic year 2008-09, in the 3rd respondent College, has already commenced four months back and, in view of that, the 1st respondent cannot ratify the admission of the petitioner at this belated point of time. In the circumstances of the case and in view of the aforesaid submission, I am of the opinion that this Court cannot condone the delay in getting admission of the petitioner ratified and direct the 1st respondent to regularize the admission of the petitioner. However, if the petitioner has any grievance of his being admitted into the 3rd respondent College, which admitted him without ratification, he is at liberty to prosecute or take necessary action against the 3rd respondent College in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, reserving the aforesaid liberty. No costs. _____________ N.V.RAMANA,J 17.03.2009 v v