Regulations governing course completion must be adhered to unless adequately challenged; failure to provide sufficient evidence of health issues led to dismissal of the petition.

ORAL ORDER:

GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J.

Heard Sri Tagore Yadav Yaragorla, Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, Smt. T.V. Sri Devi, learned Standing Counsel for Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Sri P. Soma Raju, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Medical & Health, Sri Surya Teja Anumolu, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent No.7 and Sri B. Srinivasa Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.5.

2. The prayer sought in the present Writ Petition is as under:

“It is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the actions of the respondents in not allowing the petitioner to complete her graduation and declare that said regulation are not applicable to petitioner since the Petitioner had not exhausted the minimum 16 attempts in 9 years on account of health conditions as the same is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300 A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to read out the rules for the purpose of attempting the exams and exempting from the health grounds and allow the petitioner to attend the classes and examination of remaining academic years and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

3. An Interim prayer was also sought, which is as under:

“It is further prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider and permit the petitioner to pay the fee and appear for the examinations, pending disposal of the writ petition and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

4. Vide Order dated 11.02.2025, my predecessor has passed the following impugned Order:

“Subject to the outcome of the Writ Petition, the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to pay fee, to appear for the 2^nd year examination, to be received from the month of March, 2025.”

5. Smt. T. V. Sridevi, Ld. Standing Counsel for Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences (Respondent No.2) submits that the University of Health Sciences had preferred a Writ Appeal against the said Interim Order dated: 11.02.2025; and that the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court, having examined the Writ Appeal No.235 of 2025, was pleased to set aside the interim Order dated 11.02.2025. The relevant portion of the Order passed by the Division Bench dated 20.03.2025 is usefully extracted hereunder:

“ 6. Admittedly, the petitioner was unable to do so. Subsequently, the aforementioned Regulation was amended in the year 2015, which required a candidate to clear the entire course within a period of nine (9) years. Since the petitioner had been admitted in the B.D.S. Course in the year 2015, she was required to complete the course by 2023. However, it appears that there was a clarification issued by the Dental Council of India that insofar as the students who had been admitted to B.D.S. Course prior to 2015, they shall continue to be governed by the Regulations of 2007.

7. Be that as it may, it is the admitted case of the parties before us that the petitioner does not qualify as per the said regulations. Although learned counsel for the petitioner/ respondent No.1 herein would urge that the petitioner was unable to clear her 1^st year examination on account of some accident, on account of which the petitioner had remained bed ridden from 2015 to 2019, yet, in our opinion, that may not, in itself, be a justification to not apply the Regulations with its full rigor.

8. Be that as it may, the learned single Judge, by virtue of the impugned order, which is a non-speaking order, does not deal with the statutory procedure, much less the Regulations of 2007, and had directed the acceptance of fees from the petitioner with a view to enable her to appear in the 2^nd year examination.

9. In our opinion, the direction runs contrary to the express mandate of the Regulation a