D.Reshma Sahithi, v. The State Of Telangana, Health, Medical And Family

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI Writ Petition No.34581 of 2016 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Just ice V. Ramasubramanian) The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition challenging the action of the respondents in giving her less than 24 hours of time to report at the Dental College to which she was allotted in the fourth phase of counseling for admission to professional medical course for the academic year 2016-17.

2. Heard Sri M.R.K.Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Medical & Health, Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondentUniversity and Sri P. Vishnu Vardhan Reddy, learned standing counsel for Dental Council of India.

3. Admittedly, the petitioner was allotted in the fourth phase of counseling held on 04.10.2016 to the 3rd respondent college. The 3rd respondent College is a Government Dental College. The petitioner was directed to report at or before 4 P.M. on 05.10.2016, along with the original certificates. The petitioner, residing at a place more than about 400 KMs away from Hyderabad, could reach Hyderabad only on 06.10.2016. But she was denied admission on the ground that deadline was over.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner came up with the above writ petition. Fortunately, the Supreme Court extended the last date of

admission, first up to 07.10.2016 and then up to 15.10.2016. Therefore, when the writ petition came up for hearing on 13.10.2016, we have passed an interim order to the following effect:

" Mr. A. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the second respondent takes notice.

Issue notice to the third respondent returnable in two weeks.

In the meantime, the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to join the third respondent college, as the time limit given to her on 04.10.2016 to report along with the original certificates on 05.10.2016 was not sufficient to undertake a travel."

5. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner was permitted to join the course on 14.10.2016. Since the said date was within extended deadline prescribed by the Supreme Court, the 3rd respondent allowed her to pay fee and continue the curriculum. Now for the past nearly four months, the petitioner is continuing the course in the first year BDS.

6. The admission of the petitioner was by way of allotment made by the Convener. Therefore, it was a valid allotment. The admission has taken place before the deadline fixed by the Supreme Court. Therefore, neither the 2nd respondent-University nor the Dental Council can have any objection to this writ petition being closed with a direction to approve the admission and allow her to continue the entire course of study.

7. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents 2 and 4 to approve the admission of the petitioner and

allow her to continue full course of study. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this writ petition, shall stand closed.

_______________________ V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J ______________ J. UMA DEVI, J Date: 07.02.2017 BSS

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI Writ Petition No.34581 of 2016 (per Hon'ble Sri Just ice V. Ramasubramanian) Date: 07.02.2017 BSS