( 1 ) ALL these writ appeals are directed against the same order of the learned single Judge dated 10. 7. 2002 in WP No. 9085 of 2002. WA No. 1169 of 2002 is by one Dr. B. G. V. Giridhar, the 3rd respondent in the writ petition; WA no. 1180 of 2002 is by N. T. R. University of health Sciences, the 2nd respondent in the writ petition; and WA No. 1495 of 2002 is by State Government of Andhra Pradesh, the 1st respondent in the writ petition. The 1st respondent in these appeals, namely. Dr. Ch. Ramakrishna Rao filed the above writ petition praying for the following relief:"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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus (i) by declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the MD qualification for selection to the post of DM (Neurology) as wholly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India; (ii) declare that regulation 7 (f) of 2nd respondent university is contrary to Section 3 of Act 5 of 1983 and rules made thereunder and set aside the same by declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; (iii) direct the 2nd respondent university to consider the case of the petitioner for admission in M. D. Neurology course in Osmania Medical college, Hyderabad, for the academic year 2002-2003 by giving preference to the rank secured in M. D. General Medicine in the interest of justice; (iv) declare 7 (3) of the a. P. Regulation of Admission to Super specialities in the Medical Colleges Rules, 1983, issued in G. O. Ms. No. 740, Medical and Health (E-II), dated 22. 11. 1983 as ultra vires, illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and declare the same contrary to Section 3 of the Act of 1983"

( 2 ) IT is contended in the writ affidavit that Rule 7 (3) of the Andhra Pradesh regulation of Admission to Super Specialities in the Medical Colleges Rules, 1983 (for shot the Rules ) is arbitrary, unreasonable and it offends the provisions of Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Educational institutions (Regulation of Admissions and prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 (for short the Act ). The writ petition was opposed by the appellants herein by filing counter affidavits. On behalf of the respondents, it was contended that the impugned Rule is intra vires the Act and is very much within the power conferred under Section 15 of the Act.

( 3 ) THE learned single Judge on consideration of the rival contentions found the impugned Rule to be contrary to the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. The learned Judge has also opined that in framing the impugned Rule, the State Government acted ultra vires the Act. In the premise of these findings, the learned Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the N. T. R. University to consider and admit the petitioner into DM Course, if he satisfies the other requirements.

( 4 ) THE writ petitioner challenged the validity of the Rule 7 (3) in the context of the denial of admission to him to the course leading to the degree, DM (Neurology) and granting admission to Dr. B. G. V. Giridhar (the 3rd respondent in the writ petition) to that course. In the entrance test conducted by the N. T. R. University -2nd respondent, the petitioner as well as the third respondent secured 74 marks. At that stage itself the University by applying the provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 7 of the Rules, placed the third respondent above the writ petitioner in the merit list because the third respondent had secured 60. 81% in the subject of Medicine whereas the writ petitioner had secured 54. 64% in the MBBS degree course. At that juncture, the writ petition was filed praying for the relief already noted above.

( 5 ) ARGUING for the appellant in WA no. 1169 of 2002, Sri Sitharam Murthy contended that the ve