THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION No.12797 OF 2025

ORDER:

Heard Sri D.S.Kishan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.Nagarjuna Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Medical and Health for respondent No.1, Sri T.Sharath, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-University and perused the record.

2. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking writ of Mandamus (i) to declare Clause (xvii)(a) of Rule 4 of the Selection Process under G.O.Ms.No.114, dated 05.07.2017, as unconstitutional; (ii) to declare the action of the respondents in listing his name among ineligible candidates for MBBS/BDS courses for the academic year 2025-2026 as arbitrary and illegal; and (iii) consequently, to direct the respondents to permit him to participate in the NEET counselling for 2025-2026.

Factual Matrix

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts, as chronicled in the petition, are that the petitioner, having qualified in NEET-

UG-2024 participated in the NEET-UG-2024 counselling process for admission into the MBBS course under the Management Quota. The petitioner was provisionally allotted a seat in the MBBS course at Pratima Institute of Medical Sciences, Karimnagar, under the Management Quota in the Mop-Up phase of counselling. The provisional allotment letter, dated 24.10.2024 (Ex.P6) stipulated that the petitioner had to report to the college by 3:00 PM on 29.10.2024, with all original certificates and the requisite tuition fee of Rs.24,00,000/-.

4. The petitioner presented himself at the college on the appointed day with a Demand Draft (DD) for Rs.12,00,000/- and an account payee cheque from his father for the remaining balance amount of Rs.12,00,000/-, making up the total tuition fee of Rs.24,00,000/-. The college authorities refused to accept the payment in hybrid form in two instruments i.e., DD + Cheque and insisted on a single DD or a Banker’s cheque for the entire fee. The petitioner pleaded for time until the next day to arrange a single DD, but this request was declined. Consequently, he was marked as "Not Reported" and his provisional admission stood cancelled. In consonance with the rules governing the administration process, the University, vide letter dated 28.12.2024, invoked the penalty clause under the administration notification dated 22.10.2024, imposing a debarment for three years from admission to MBBS/BDS courses and a monetary penalty of Rs.20,00,000/- for "seat blocking". Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached this Court challenging the debarment as arbitrary, illegal and unconstutional.

Contentions of the petitioner

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner fervently argued that this was not a case of deliberate seat blocking. The petitioner was seriously desirous of pursuing the course, as evidenced by the petitioner’s physical presence at the college with a substantial part of the fee in the form of a DD. The inability to furnish the entire sum by way of a DD on the very last day was the petitioner's default, which was not wilful but was a result of a bona fide difficulty in arranging a single instrument at short notice. He emphasized that the petitioner was financially ready and willing to pay the fee, as evidenced by the DD and cheque presented. The insistence on a single DD, he contended, was an arbitrary and hyper-technical requirement that vitiated the process. He further argued that the penalty of debarment for three years is disproportionately harsh, violates Article 14 of the Constitution, and amounts to a "civil death" upon the academic career of a young student aspiring to become a doctor.

Contentions of the respondents

6. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-University defended the impugned action with robust reasoning. He argued that the rules of administration to highly competitive professional courses like MBBS must adhere to strict, time-bound schedules