Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
C. Praveen Kumar, D. Ramesh, JJ.
Pasupuleti Koteswara Rao – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. – Respondents
W.P. Nos. 10319 of 2019, 22553, 22741 and 23233 of 2020
Decided On : 14-12-2020
LOCAL CANDIDATE - MBBS/BDS ADMISSION - RESIDENCE REQUIREMENT - INTERPRETATION OF REGULATIONS - PRESIDENTIAL ORDER - FULL BENCH JUDGMENT: 1. Petitioners claim to be treated as local candidates for MBBS/BDS admission based on their residence in a local area or Andhra Pradesh for more than 7 years. 2. Regulations issued for admission prescribe conditions for local candidate status, including studying in the local area for 4 or 7 consecutive academic years or residing in the State for 4 or 7 years. 3. Petitioners did not fulfill these conditions as they studied outside the State for XI and XII classes, despite residing in Andhra Pradesh for most of their education. 4. Presidential Order and subsequent G.Os. provide for local candidate status based on residence or study in the State, but petitioners did not meet these criteria either. 5. Full Bench judgment in Bathina Rajya Shilpa v. NTR University of Health Sciences clarified that a candidate must study in the State for 7 consecutive years ending with the qualifying examination to be considered a local candidate. 6. Petitioners' argument that they should not be treated worse than non-local students who study in the State for 4 or 7 years was addressed in the Full Bench judgment, which found no provision in the Presidential Order to grant relief in such situations.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, who studied in Andhra Pradesh for most of their education but completed XI and XII classes outside the State, sought to be treated as local candidates for MBBS/BDS admission based on their residence in Andhra Pradesh for more than 7 years.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioners did not fulfill the conditions prescribed in the regulations for local candidate status, as they did not study in the local area for 4 or 7 consecutive academic years or reside in the State for 4 or 7 years. The Court also held that the Presidential Order and subsequent G.Os. did not provide for local candidate status based solely on residence or study in the State, and that the petitioners did not meet the criteria for local candidate status under those provisions either.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners, who studied in Andhra Pradesh for most of their education but completed XI and XII classes outside the State, can be treated as local candidates for MBBS/BDS admission based on their residence in Andhra Pradesh for more than 7 years? 2. Whether the regulations issued for admission, the Presidential Order, and subsequent G.Os. provide for local candidate status based solely on residence or study in the State?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted the regulations issued for admission, the Presidential Order, and subsequent G.Os. to hold that a candidate must study in the State for 7 consecutive years ending with the qualifying examination to be considered a local candidate. 2. The Court found that the petitioners did not fulfill the conditions prescribed in the regulations for local candidate status, as they did not study in the local area for 4 or 7 consecutive academic years or reside in the State for 4 or 7 years. The Court also held that the Presidential Order and subsequent G.Os. did not provide for local candidate status based solely on residence or study in the State, and that the petitioners did not meet the criteria for local candidate status under those provisions either.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the petitioners were not entitled to be treated as local candidates for MBBS/BDS admission.
ORDER
C. Praveen Kumar, J.
1. As the issue involved in all the Writ Petitions being the same, they are disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The issue that stems out for consideration is, whether the petitioners in all these cases can be treated as local candidates for admission into MBBS/BDS course for the academic year 2020-2021.
3. The petitioner in W.P. No. 22553 of 2020 and W.P. No. 10319 of 2019 being one and the same, as W.P. No. 10319 of 2019 came to be filed for a similar declaration in the previous academic year.
The facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner studied classes III to X at Loyola Public School, Nallapadu, Guntur. After completing his X class, joined XI class at De Paul International Residential School, Mysore and completed the XII class in April 2019. After obtaining the certificate from the concerned, he appeared in the entrance examination conducted by Medical Council of India, which is known as NEET. The 2nd respondent published a list of candidates, who appeared for the exam relating to Andhra Pradesh State, with cut off mark at 113. The cut off mark of general category was said to have been stipulated at 147'. The petitioner secured 565 marks out of 720 and he was placed at serial No. 1517 under EWS category. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued prospectus/regulations for submission of online application forms for admission into the course for the academic year 2020-2021. The candidates, who have secured more than the cut off marks, submitted their online applications, depending upon their eligibility, for allotment of seats under the competent authority quota. The petitioner also submitted his application within the time prescribed. In one of the columns prescribed, the petitioner stated that he belongs to EWS category and that he would fall within the Andhra University local area. In support of the same, he uploaded all the documents. On 22.11.2020, the petitioner downloaded the provisional verification report and found that he was categorized in non-local category, which led to filing of the present Writ Petition. It is not in dispute here that the petitioner was born in Guntur on 6.2.2002 and only for a period of two years, he went outside the state of Andhra Pradesh and studied XI and XII classes in Mandya District of Karnataka State. After completing the same, he came back to Guntur. Having regard to the fact that his entire education, except two years of education, was at Guntur and having regard to the fact that the Aadhar Card shows his address at Guntur, pleads that he should be treated as a local candidate.
4. The facts in W.P. No. 22741 of 2020, in nutshell, are that the petitioner studied Pre-school to UKG at Priyanka Preschool, Rajahmundry in Andhra Pradesh during the academic years 2004 to 2007; from first standard to IV class, in Gomathy International School, Nellore, during the academic years 2007 to 2011 and fifth standard in Bens Discovery School, Nellore and further studied VI class to X class in Ratnam English Medium School, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh during the years 2012 to 2017. As petitioner's father, who is a Central Government Employee, was transferred to Mumbai, the petitioner studied XI and XII classes in Mumbai. Soon after completion of XII class, he appeared in National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) in the year 2019-2020, where he was treated as local, but as he could not secure good rank, took long term coaching and appeared for the A.P. UG Medical admissions 2020-2021. The petitioner secured 522 marks out of 720 and he was placed at serial No. 2900. On 20.11.2020, the petitioner is said to have downloaded the provisional verification report and found that he was categorized in non-local category, which lead to filing of the present Writ Petition. It is not in dispute here that the petitioner was born in Vijayawada on 22.9.2001 and only for a period of two years, he went outside the Andhra Pradesh State and studied classes XI and XII in Mumbai, Maharashtra. After c
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
