1. Petitioner contested the validity of using undergraduate medical marks as a tiebreaker for super speciality course admissions, challenging existing university regulations and state rules. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 37927
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Lisa Gill, CJ, Ninala Jayasurya, J, Y. Lakshmana Rao, J
Mohd. Akbar – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WRIT APPEAL NO: 873 of 2006
Important Points
Courts should refrain from deciding academic or hypothetical questions in the absence of a live controversy (real lis) between the parties, as such decisions would be a purely academic exercise with no impact on the parties' positions.
Subject
Civil - Education
Act Referred
A.P. Regulation of Admission to Super Specialties in the Medical Colleges Rules, 1983: R.7(3)
Indian Medical Council Act, 1956
National Medical Commission Act, 2019: S.14(1), S.37, S.61(2)
Indian Medical Council Act, 1956
National Medical Commission Act, 2019: S.14(1), S.37, S.61(2)
Headnote
(A) Academic Questions - Adjudication of issues - Courts do not decide matters that are purely of academic interest or hypothetical when no real lis exists between the parties, as such disembodied pronouncements serve no useful purpose. (Para 16, 17, 20)
(B) Medical Education - Admission to Super Speciality Courses - Tie-breaker criteria - The validity of using MBBS marks to determine inter-se merit in cases of equal marks in entrance tests is a question that may be adjudicated in future live controversies, especially following the transition from the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 to the National Medical Commission Act, 2019. (Para 21)
Issues: Whether Rule 7(3) of the Rules and Clause 7.6 of the Regulations, providing for the use of MBBS marks to determine inter-se merit for admission to super speciality courses, are irrational and lack nexus with the object of selecting the most meritorious candidates.
(B) Medical Education - Admission to Super Speciality Courses - Tie-breaker criteria - The validity of using MBBS marks to determine inter-se merit in cases of equal marks in entrance tests is a question that may be adjudicated in future live controversies, especially following the transition from the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 to the National Medical Commission Act, 2019. (Para 21)
Issues: Whether Rule 7(3) of the Rules and Clause 7.6 of the Regulations, providing for the use of MBBS marks to determine inter-se merit for admission to super speciality courses, are irrational and lack nexus with the object of selecting the most meritorious candidates.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sivaprasad Reddy Venati
For the Respondents: N. Phanindra, GP for Medical Health and Family Welfare, Tata Venkata Sridevi
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sivaprasad Reddy Venati
For the Respondents: N. Phanindra, GP for Medical Health and Family Welfare, Tata Venkata Sridevi
Table of Contents
2. The appellant argued against the rationality of using undergraduate marks for super speciality merit, while respondents contended the issue had become academic due to legislative changes. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
3. The court observed that statutory changes under the new medical commission act and evolving admission criteria rendered the original grievance moot and purely academic. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 14 )
4. Courts will not adjudicate upon academic or hypothetical questions where no live controversy exists between parties and any ruling would lack practical impact. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 )
5. The writ appeal was dismissed as infructuous, with the court expressly reserving the legal issue for determination in a future, live controversy. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 )
6. Should a court adjudicate a legal issue when subsequent statutory changes render it academic?
No, courts should not decide matters that are purely of academic interest or hypothetical, as they must function within the context of a real, live controversy between parties. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 )
7. Can a court leave a contested legal question open for future determination?
Yes, when a matter becomes infructuous or academic, a court may decline to rule on the merits while expressly keeping the legal question open for adjudication in an appropriate future proceeding where a live controversy exists. (Para 21 , 22 )
LISA GILL, CJ:
This matter has been placed before us in view of order dated 27.09.2006, whereby a Division Bench of this Court while considering abovesaid writ appeal filed against order dated 28.07.2006, passed in W.P.No.15613 of 2006 referred the following question for consideration by a Larger Bench:
“Whether Rule 7(3) of the Rules and Clause 7.6 of the Regulations, which provide for taking into consideration of the marks secured in the MBBS examination for the purpose of determination of inter-se merit of the candidates securing equal marks in the entrance test held for admission to the super speciality courses are irrational and have no nexus with the object sought to be achieved viz. to select the most meritorious candidates into the super speciality courses?”
2. Brief factual conspectus required for adjudication of matter is that appellant-writ petitioner sought admission in Super Speciality courses in June 2006. He appeared for entrance examination conducted by Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, (for short, “University”). He submitted his choice for admission in D.M. (Gastroenterology) as did respondent No.5. Appellant and respondent No.5 secured equal marks i.e. 73% in entrance examination. Respondent-University, in terms of Clause 7.6 of University Regulations (Prospectus for Admission to Super Specialty Courses (DM and M.Ch.) for the Academic Session 2006-07, Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, A.P., Vijayawada), allowed admission to respondent No.5 in Super Speciality course of D.M.(Gastroenterology). Present appellant, being aggrieved, filed Writ Petition No.15613 of 2006 seeking striking down of Rule 7(3) of A.P. Regulation of Admission to Super Specialties in the Medical Colleges Rules, 1983 , (for short, “the Rules, 1983”) and Clause 7.6 of University Regulations.
3. Learned writ Court dismissed the writ petition in view of decision of Division Bench of this High Court in Dr. B.G.V. Giridhar vs. Dr. Ch. Ramakrishna Rao and others, 12002 (6) ALD 331, dated 19.09.2002. Aggrieved therefrom, present writ appeal was filed by appellant-writ petitioner.
4. Division Bench, considering the said appeal, prima facie found that marks secured by candidates in MBBS examination cannot be made basis for determining inter-se merit of candidates for admission to Super Speciality courses, because for purpose of assessing comparative merit for admission in Super Speciality course, marks secured by candidates in Postgraduate course are more relevant and not those of MBBS examinations. It was felt that Division Bench in the case of Dr. B.G.V. Giridhar(supra) had not considered applicable Rules and Regulation on the anvil of rationality, inasmuch as whether there is any valid ground or justification for computation of marks secured by candidates in MBBS examination for determining their inter-se merit for purpose of admission to Super Speciality courses.
5. Rule 7(3) of Rules, 1983, reads as under:
“7. Method of selections:(3) If two candidates get equal marks in the entrance test, marks obtained in medicine in MBBS for medical specialties and marks obtained in Surgery for specialties shall be taken into consideration for fixing the merit of the candidates”.
6. It was felt by Division Bench that earlier judgment in Dr. B.G.V. Giridhar (supra) required reconsideration, as there was an erroneous assumption therein, that there is no distinction between admission to a Postgraduate course and Super Speciality course. Matter was thus referred to a Larger Bench with question as detailed above being framed for consideration. Matter has unfortunately kept hanging fire since then.
7. Learned counsel for parties at the outset brought to notice of this Court that there has been a sea change in applicable laws. Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, then applicable, has since been repealed and replaced by National Medical Commission Act, 2019 (for short, “NMC Act, 2019”). Section 14(1) of NMC Ac
