The enforcement of penalty and debarment for non-joining of allocated seats was deemed too harsh and violative of Article 21-A of the Constitution of India.

ORDER :

Abhinand Kumar Shavili, J.

All these Writ Petitions are being heard together and disposed of by way of this Common Order as the issue raised in all these Writ Petitions is one and the same.

2. Heard Sri Rajagopallavan Tayi, Sri Hussain Aamir, Sri Sama Sandeep Reddy, Sri Raavilla Gopala Krishna, Sri P. Sravan Kumar Goud, Sri T. Rajinikanth Reddy, Sri V.Ramesh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners in all the Writ Petitions and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent, Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3-University.

3. For the sake of convenience, the facts in W.P.No.39972 of 2022 are hereunder discussed.

4. W.P.No.39972 of 2022 is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the provisions of clause (xvii) (a) of the Rule 4 (Selection Procedure) of G.O.Ms.No.114 dt.05-07-2017 as unconstitutional and further declare in listing the name of the petitioner in the list of not eligible candidates for the admission into the M.B.B.S. course for the academic year 2022-23 as being arbitrary and illegal and consequently delete the name of the petitioner from the list of ineligible candidates for the admission into the M.B.B.S. course for the academic year 2022-23 by duly permitting the petitioner to participate in the NEET counseling for the academic year 2022-23.

5. It has been contended by the petitioners that all the petitioners have appeared for Under Graduate NEET-2022 and they have secured decent marks in the said entrance examination and the respondents-University have issued admission notification for MBBS/BDS courses, but the respondents-University has issued list of ineligible candidates on 23-10-2022 wherein the names of the petitioners are included. It has been further stated by the respondents-University that the petitioners are not eligible for the admission into MBBS course in terms of G.O.Ms.No.114 dt.05-07-2017 for a period of three years on the ground that the petitioners have been allotted admission under Management Quota i.e. ‘B’ category for the last academic year 2021-22, and therefore they were barred from permitting MBBS/BDS course in Telangana for three years till 2024 and therefore the petitioners could not get admission this year and that the petitioners have vacated the seats even though they were allotted seats under Management Quota. Consequently, the resultant vacancies are caused because of not joining the petitioners in the said seats and the same were allowed to be filled up by the management by treating them as management seats and consequently the next meritorious candidates could not get admission in the MBBS/ BDS Course.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners had contended that the fact that the petitioners were allotted seats last year under management quota was not properly informed to them as they could not take up the admission under management quota during the last academic year and consequent upon their social status, the petitioners have strived hard for the whole of the academic year and appeared for the UG-NEET-2022 and they have secured decent ranks and improved their ranks, thereby making them eligible for admission into MBBS/BDS course on the strength of their marks secured in the said examination. But the respondents-University have debarred the petitioners from taking admission for the next three academic years on the ground that they were not taken admission owning socio economic conditions. If the ‘B’ category (Management Quota) seats could not be filled up, they are liable to be filled up by the management under NRI quota by treating it as ‘C’ category seats.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners have drawn our attention that the petitioners never executed any bond nor paid any penalty amount of Rs.3.00 lakhs to the respondents University and in the absence of their execution of bond or payment, the question of enforcing the conditions in the bond against the petitioners would not arise. Therefore, appropriate