Bobbili Anusha, D/o Naveen Kumar vs Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences, Telangana State

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2018 Supreme(AP) 8

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
V. Ramasubramanian, M. Ganga Rao, JJ.
Bobbili Anusha, D/o Naveen Kumar - Petitioner
v.
Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences, Telangana State & others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 17221 of 2017
Decided On : 31-01-2018

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. G. Vidyasagar, senior counsel
For the Respondent: Mr. A. Prabhakara Rao, standing counsel, Mr. Vivek Chandrasekhar, standing counsel, Mr. B.G. Ravinder Reddy, standing counsel

Headnote:
Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 - Section 3(1) - Indian Medical Council Act 1956 - Section 33 - Graduate Medical Admission Regulations, 1997 - Sub-regulation (5) of Regulation 5 - Education matter - EAMCET-III - Secured minimum cut off marks - Admission - Cancellation of their admission - Challenged - Employees State Insurance Corporation established a Medical College at Hyderabad, for the first time, during the academic - Issued by the said Medical College for admission to the MBBS course. As per the notification, 50 seats were reserved for the wards of insured persons, out of which 25 were left unreserved, 8 reserved for Scheduled Castes, 4 reserved for Scheduled Tribes and 13 reserved for Other Backward Classes. The selection was to be based upon a common entrance test - Common entrance test announced conducted - Same was cancelled - A second examination known as EAMCET-II, was held, but the same was also cancelled on account of certain malpractices. Therefore, the Employees State Insurance Corporation Medical College, who is the 4th respondent herein, cancelled the admission notification issued and issued a fresh notification - Held, Contention loses sight of one important fact. What was under challenge before the Supreme Court in Christian Medical College was only the notification. It was that notification, which was set aside. Therefore, Regulation 5 (5)(ii), as it existed before the notification would automatically come back to life. This position can be best understood through an illustration. If a provision of the statute is substituted by a new one by way of amendment and if the newly substituted provision is set aside, then the position may be different. But if the notification by which a substitution is ordered is challenged and it is set aside, then the provision that existed before would get revived - Therefore, it is clear from the above discussion that the MCI Regulations always contained a prescription with regard to the minimum qualifying marks and that the petitioners, who had not secured minimum qualifying marks, ought not to have been admitted to the medical course. As a consequence, their discharge from the courses cannot be taken exception to - writ petition dismissed

ORDER :

V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.

1. The petitioners, who secured admission to the first year of the MBBS course during the academic Year 2016-17 and who were ordered by the University to be discharged from the college on the ground that they had not secured the minimum cut off marks in EAMCET-III, have come up with the above writ petition challenging the cancellation of their admission.

2. Heard Mr. G. Vidyasagar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. A. Prabhakara Rao, learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent-University, Mr. Vivek Chandrasekhar, learned standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-Medical Council of India and Mr. B.G. Ravinder Reddy, learned standing counsel for the respondents 3 and 4-ESI Corporation.

3. The petitioners 1 and 3 herein belong to the Scheduled Castes. The petitioners 2 and 4 do not belong to any reserved category.

4. The Employees State Insurance Corporation established a Medical College at Hyderabad, for the first time, during the academic year 2016-17. A notification dated 20-07-2016 was issued by the said Medical College for admission to the MBBS course. As per the notification, 50 seats were reserved for the wards of insured persons, out of which 25 were left unreserved, 8 reserved for Scheduled Castes, 4 reserved for Scheduled Tribes and 13 reserved for Other Backward Classes. The selection was to be based upon a common entrance test.

5. In the State of Telangana, a common entrance test known as EAMCET-I was announced in February and conducted in March, 2016, but the same was cancelled. A second examination known as EAMCET-II, was held in May, 2016, but the same was also cancelled in July, 2016 on account of certain malpractices. Therefore, the Employees State Insurance Corporation Medical College, who is the 4th respondent herein, cancelled the admission notification issued on 20-07-2016 and issued a fresh notification on 01-09-2016.

6. The petitioners applied and they were short-listed for counseling at New Delhi. After the counseling held on 27-09-2016, the names of the petitioners were included respectively at Serial Nos. 39, 35, 40 and 38 and they were issued with allotment letters. The petitioners joined the course by paying the requisite fee and the classes commenced from 03-10-2016.

7. But by a letter dated 13-04-2017, the Medical Council of India asked the ESI Corporation Medical College to clarify as to how the petitioners 1 and 3, who secured less than 40 percentile marks in EAMCET-III and the petitioners 2 and 4, who secured less than 50 percentile marks in EAMCET-III, were granted admission. In response to the said communication, the ESI Corporation Medical College sent a reply dated 22-04-2017 claiming that the Telangana State awarded ranks based on the aggregate score in EMACET-III and the Higher Secondary Education and that on the basis of the same, admission was granted.

8. In the meantime, the ESI Corporation Medical College sent a list of candidates admitted to the course, to the Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences. After perusing the merit list of all candidates selected for admission, the University sent the impugned notification dated 04-05-2017 to the ESI Corporation Medical College calling upon them to discharge the petitioners herein on the ground that the petitioners had not secured the minimum marks in EAMCET-III. Upon being served with a copy of the said communication, the petitioners came up with the above writ petition. On 18-05-2017, this Court ordered notice before admission and also granted interim suspension of the communication of the University dated 04-05-2017. By virtue of the said interim order, the petitioners are continuing their course of study.

9. The contention of the petitioners is that admissions to MBBS courses in the State of Telangana are regulated by a State enactment known as Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983, as per Section 3(1)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document