Back
2015 Supreme(AP) 604
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J.
Bichenapally Sumahitha – Appellant
Versus
Government of Telangana, Department of Health, Medical & Family Welfare (C1) Department & Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 32414 of 2014
Decided On : 23-09-2015
For the Petitioner:A. Sudharshan Reddy, Advocate
For the Respondents:R1 & R2, GP for Medical & Health, R3, A. Prabhakar Rao, R4, E. Ajay Reddy, Advocates, R5, V. Srinivas Rao, Standing Counsel for Medical Counsel of India
Headnote:
Health, Medical and Family Welfare – MBBS Course – Examination - She secured 97.66% of marks in the relevant subjects and attended for examination. She secured 4178th rank. Since the chances of securing admission through were little, she to apply for admission under C1 category admissions to MBBS are governed by the rules framed under G.O.Ms.No.9, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (C1) Department, dated 25.08.2014, as per which, 60% of the seats are filled under convener quota whereas 40% of the seats are filled under category C. In respect of C category seats, 25% are earmarked for management quota under C1, and 15% are earmarked for NRI quota. fee payable for management quota is different from NRI quota fourth respondent college issued a notification on 27.08.2014 inviting applications for filling up of the seats under management quota petitioner applied fourth respondent directed the petitioner to attend for an interview and also directed her to furnish a bank guarantee with relevant documents petitioner appeared for the interview and submitted all the relevant documents along with a Demand Draft for Rs.9,00,000/- for the first year fees drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad,. petitioner also submitted a bank guarantee for an amount of Rs.36,00,000/- from the State Bank of Hyderabad Branch, valid fourth respondent College had collected all the originals, demand drafts, bank guarantee etc itself –Held, learned Single Judge also seem to have been very much carried away by few instances noticed by him as to the award of higher percentage of marks in viva voce to those who got lower marks in written test as compared to some who scored higher marks in written examination but could not get as much higher marks in viva voce. Picking up a negligible few instances cannot provide the basis for either striking down the method of selection or the selections ultimately made. There is no guarantee that a person who fared well in written test will or should be presumed to have fared well in viva voce test also and the Expert opinion as well as experience in viva voce does not lend credence to any such general assumptions, in all circumstances and for all eventualities. That apart the variation of written test marks of those who were found to have been awarded higher marks in viva voce viz- those who secured higher marks in the written test but not so in the viva voce cannot be said to be so much as to warrant any proof of inherent vice in the very system of selection or the actual selection in the case. There was no specific allegation of any mala fides or bias against the Board constituted for selection or any one in the Board nor any such plea could be said to have been substantiated in this case observation by the learned Single Judge that there was a conscious effort made for bringing some candidates within the selection zone cannot be said to be justified from the mere fact of certain instances noticed by him on any general principle or even on the merits of those factual instances alone. Further, the course adopted by the learned Single Judge in directing selection from general candidates all those who have obtained 56 marks in written examination cannot be justified at all and it is not given to the Court to alter the very method of selection and totally dispense with viva voce in respect of a section alone of the candidates, for purposes of selection – Writ Petition allowed.
The writ petitioner is a student who wanted to pursue MBBS Course. She secured 97.66% of marks in the relevant subjects and attended for EAMCET-2014 examination. She secured 4178th rank. Since the chances of securing admission through counseling were little, she wanter to apply for admission under C1 category. The admissions to MBBS are governed by the rules framed under G.O.Ms.No.9, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (C1) Department, dated 25.08.2014, as per which, 60% of the seats are filled under convener quota whereas 40% of the seats are filled under category C. In respect of C category seats, 25% are earmarked for management quota under C1, and 15% are earmarked for NRI quota. The fee payable for management quota is different from NRI quota.
The fourth respondent college issued a notification on 27.08.2014 inviting applications for filling up of the seats under management quota. The petitioner applied on 29.08.2014. The fourth respondent directed the petitioner to attend for an interview and also directed her to furnish a bank guarantee with relevant documents. The petitioner appeared for the interview and submitted all the relevant documents on 30.08.2014 along with a Demand Draft for Rs.9,00,000/- for the first year fees drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, dated 30.08.2014. The petitioner also submitted a bank guarantee bearing No.01/2014-15 for an amount of Rs.36,00,000/- from the State Bank of Hyderabad, Saroornagar Branch, valid till 31.03.2019. The fourth respondent College had collected all the originals, demand drafts, bank guarantee etc., on 30.08.2014 itself. Later on, the originals were returned and only photocopies were retained by them. At that stage, the petitioner filed W.P.No.25636 of 2014 challenging the action of the fourth respondent in returning the originals and this Court, by order dated 03.09.2014, directed the fourth respondent to receive the bank guarantee and demand draft and consider the case of the petitioner for admission into MBBS course for the academic year 2014-2015 based on her ranking under C1 category. Though the fourth respondent was under obligation to display the merit list of the candidates on the notice board, the same was not displayed. The fourth respondent filed a petition in W.P.No.25636 of 2014 seeking vacation of the direction and enclosed the merit list. The petitioner was surprised to know that she was placed at serial No.38 by awarding 1 mark in the interview as against 15 marks earmarked for the interview upsetting her chances of securing admission in the course. Though the petitioner secured 586 marks in the group subjects and she was second highest candidate in the merit list, by awarding only 1 mark in the interview, the petitioner was denied admission. The candidates, who secured lesser marks of 497, got admission by awarding marks arbitrarily at the time of interview. Challenging denial of her admission, the present Writ Petition is filed.
A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the third respondent stating that the admissions to MBBS course in private unaided non-minority medical colleges are governed by the rules issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.Ms.No.136, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (E.1) Department, dated 30.04.2007, as amended from time to time. It was amended by G.O.Ms.No.97, dated 06.07.2013 and further amended by G.O.Ms.No.9, dated 25.08.2014. It is admitted that the petitioner appeared for the EAMCET examination and secured the rank of 4178. As per the amendment made in G.O.Ms.No.9, dated 25.08.2014, the private medical college is authorized to conduct the interview by constituting a Selection Committee consisting of a) Chairman i.e., the Dean/Principal/ Director of the College; b) one Senior Faculty Member; and c) one Member from the Management Committee of the College, for selection of the candidates for admission i
