Srikeerti Reddi Pingle v. The State Of Telangana And 2 Others

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. S. RAMACHANDRA RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD t.A NO. 2 0F 2020 IN/AND WRIT PETITION NO: 23953 OF 2020 Between:

Srikeerti Reddi Pingle, D/o V.R.Reddi Pingle Occ. Student rep by her father V.R.Reddy Pingle S/o Venkat Reddy Pingle, aged about 60 years Occ. lT Professional and Business lv'lanager Permanent Fl/o 20-Deer Run Drive, West Hartford, CT-06107, presently at No 9-22, Bhupalpalli Road Parkal, Warangal Rural District ...PETrroNER AND The State of Telangana, rep by its Principal Secretary, Medical and Health Family Welfare Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad Kaloji Nararayana Rao University of Health Sciences, represented by its Registrar, Warangal.

Telangana State Board of lntermediate Education, Rep by its Secretary, Nampally, Hyderabad .RESPONDENTS ) Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in treating the petitioner as not eligible for admission into l\,4BBS Course for academic year 202021 under Management Quota Category-C NRI on the ground that'no proof of study of Biological Science subject in qualifying examination' even though the petitioner produced all the relevant documents including Equivalent Certificate issued by the respondent No.

3 dated 2311212020 which was issued on the basis of Certificate issued by the Consulate General of lndia, New York is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of their own Guidelines issued by the respondent No.2 in Notification dated 3011112020 and in violation of the rights guaranteed under the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondent No.

Kaloji Nararayana Rao University of Health Sciences, represented by its Registrar, Wa ra ngal.

.. PETITION ER/RESPON DENT NO.2 AND

1. Srikeerti Reddi Pingle, D/o V.R.Reddi Pingle Occ. Student rep by her father V.R.Reddy Pingle S/o Venkat Reddy Pingle, aged about 60 years Occ. lT Professional and Business Manager Permanent Rio 2O-Deer Run Drive, West

Harlford, CT-06107, presently al No 9-22, Bhupalpalli Road Parkal, Warangal Rural District.

2. The state of retangana, rep by its Principat s"".",".vlfiTf,iJr?tlm:51f,''t'o* Family Welfare Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad

3. Telangana State Board of lntermediate Education, Rep by its Secretary, Nampally' Hyderabad ...RESpoN DENTS/RES'.N DENT Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 2411212020 passed in lA 112020 in W.P.

No 23953 of 2020 lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner under lvlanagement Quota Category'C' NRI for admission into MBBS course for the academic year 2020-21 in the second phase of counseling or any consequent date pending disposal of writ petition in the interest of justice lA NO: 2 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents No.

SRI VEDULA SRINIVAS FOR SRI P. MEHAR SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for Respondent No. 1 & 2: ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for Respondent No.3:

SRI D.L. PANDU, STANDING COUNSEL FOR TSBIE The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD IA.No.2 of 2O2O in/ and WP.No.23953 of 2O2O ORDER:

Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, counsel for the petitioner and the Additional Advocate General for respondents 1 & 2. 2.

The petitioner herein is a foreign national, whose father is of Indian origin and who is residing in the USA. 3.

The petitioner completed Ciass-XII at Conard High School ur-rder West Hartford Board of trducation, Connecticut, USA.

4. She applied lor National Eligibility cum Entrance Test(NEET) Under Graduate exam u,ith Hall Ticket No.4205004360 in the Foreign National Category and secured All India Rank 482207 and Category Rank No.159648. 5.

However, the 2nd respondent-University published on 12.I2.2O2O a list stating that petitioner is not eligible for admission to the MBBS Course on the ground that there is no proof of study of Biological Sciences subject in the qualifying examination.

6.

The instant writ petition has been fi1ed challenging the action of the said 2,,d respondent in treating her as ineligible for

admission into MBBS Course for academic year 2O2O-21 under Management Quota Category 'CINRI) and for a direction to the 2"d respondent to provide her admission in the said category and course.

7.

Petitioner contends that the School Counselor of Conard High School had issued a Certificate dt.LL.72.2020 stating that in the 10tn Grade itself the petitioner had taken the Advanced Placement Bioiogz course where topics 1n Bio-chemistry, Ce11ular Biolog;, Organismal Biologr, Population Bio1ory, Evolution, Genetics and Ecologr are taught in depth and that it is a rigorous course of study in Biologr. She has also fi1ed

(1) letter dt.l4.l2.2O2O ol the West Hartford Science Department Supervisor to the same effect; (2\ Certihcate dt.22.12.2020 issued by the Consulate General of India, Ner,,' York that the 72 year High School Diploma obtained by the petitioner in the USA is recogeized in India as equivalent to pre-University(2 year course) new Intermediate Course; and (3) also a Certificate dt.23.72.2o20 issued by the Telangana State Board of Intermediate Education, Hyderabad that the 12tn Class/Senior Secondary Examination of West Hartford Board of Education, Connecticut, USA, is equivalent to Intermediate Examination conducted by the said Board.

B. In vieu' of these documents, the petitioner asserts that the view of the 2"a respondent that petitioner did not study Biological Sciences is not correct.

J

9. On the basis of this submission, a Division Bench presided over by the Hon'ble Chief Justice had granted an interim direction on 24.12.2O2O to the respondents to permit her to participate in the counseling to be conducted lor the leltover seats without raising any objection with regard to the proof of study of Biological Science subject in the qualilying examlnatron.

10. IA.No.3 of 2O2O is filed by the respondents in the Writ Petition to vacate the said order.

1 1. The counsel for the petitioner contended that the very basis of holding the petitioner ineligible for admission by the 2rd respondent-University has no basis in view of the documentary evidence available on record; and that once the Board of Intermediate Education has certified on 23.12.2020 that the 12th Class High School Diploma secured by the petitioner 1S equivalent to the Intermediate Examination conducted by the Telangana State Board of Intermediate Education, it is not open to the 2na respondent to prevent the petitioner from securing admission.

1,2. Attention of the Court is also drawn to the Notification issued by the 2"d respondent-University for Admission into Management Quota(B Category, C Category/NRl) seats in Private Unaided Non-minority/Minority Medical Colleges,

Private Unaided Non-Minority Dental colleges and Army dental college for MBBS/BDS Courses lor the academic year 2020-21.

13. In the above notihcation under the head "E1igibi1ity", it is stated in clause (c) that foreign students/NRl candidates/OCI card holders are eligible for admissions into MBBS and BDS courses under Management Quota Category-C seats; and candidates should specifically put the option for NRI Category in the online application to be considered for the NRi/C Category. Clause(e) states that candidates should have passed Intermediate (10+2 pattern) or its equivalent examination with Physics, Chemistry, Biologr(Botany, Zoologr)/Bio-technologr and English. Under the head "V" which deals with "procedure of filling online application, scanning/uploading of original certifi.cates and online paAment for registratiorl', it is stated in clause(h)-"equiualence certificate from Board of Intermediate Education, Government of Telangana(if passed qualifying exam other than AP/TS/CBSE/ICSE)" should be uploaded along with other documents referred to therein.

14. Admittedly, the petitioner has complied with the same by making available equivalence certificate dt.23.12.2020 from the Board of Intermediate Education certilying that her study ol Class-XII at Conard High School under West Hartford Board of Education, Connecticut, USA, is equivalent to the Intermediate Examination conducted by the Telangana State Board of Intermediate Education.

I

1 5. The Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents I and 2 however contends that notwithstanding the same, the petitioner cannot be treated as eligible and refers to Medical Council of India regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997(amended up to May, 2018) to contend that a candidate has to study Biological Sciences, Physics, Chemistry in English as compulsory subjects in 11,n and 12tr, standards or intermediate or equivalent course; that petitioner had studied the subject of Bioiogical Sciences in lOtt'Grade(1Otn class) and she has not studied the subject ol Biological Sciences in 11th and 12th Grades though she had studied Physics, Chemistry and English in 11th and 12th Grades.

16. He further contends that the Equivalence Certificate dt.23.12.2020 issued by the Telangana State Board of Intermediate Education, Hyderabad, does not specify that the petitioner had studied Biological Sciences, Physics and Chemistry in 11th and l2th Standards which equal to Intermediate and which is a pre-requisite for admission into MBBS Course as per the above regulations of the MCI. 17 . Firstly, we wish to point out that this was not the reason assigned in the Ineligibility List dt. 12.12.2020 by the lna re spondent-University. Its remark was "no proof of study of Biological Sciences subject in quaiifying examinations".

18. There was no mention at all about the validity of the equivalence certificate dt.23.72.2020 issued by the Telangana State Board of Intermediate Education, Hyderabad, to the petitioner therein.

19. The 2"d respondent therefore cannot improve and add new grounds to support its inclusion of the petitioner 1n the ineligibility list dt.12.l2.2O2O by filing a counter alfidavit in the Writ Petition.

20. In Mohinder Singh Gill v.Chief Election Commr.1, the Supreme Court held that a statutory order passed by a public authority cannot be defended by new reasons lurnished by wa1' of separate affidavits subsequently and they must be construed only on the basis of their contents and nothing e1se. It held: "8.........u.then a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its ualidity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented bg fresh reasons in the shape of affidauit or otheru-tise. Othenuise, an order bad in the begtnntng mag, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get ualidated bg additionat grounds later brought out. We may here draLu attention to the obseruations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji2:

"Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authoitg cannot be construed tn the light of explanations subsequently giuen bg the officer making the order of tuhat he nteant, or of u.that uas tn his mind, or u.that he tntended to do. Public orders made bg public authonties are meant to haue public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct ' 1978(l) scc 405 ' atn tgs2 sqt 6

of those to uthom they are addressed and must be construed objecttuelg wtth reference to the longuage used in tlrc order itself."

Orders are not like old wine becoming better as theg grout older." 21.

Secondly, the doubt about the petitioner studying Biolog, has already been clarified by the Certihcate dt.11..12.2020 of the Conard High School Counselor and also Certilrcate dt.I4.I2.2O2O ol the West Hartford Science Department Supervisor.

22.

Moreover, the expert body i.e. the Telangana State Board of Intermediate Education, Hyderabad, had certified that the 12th Ciass examination petitioner passed in West Hartford Board of Education, Connecticut, USA, is equivalent to Intermediate examination conducted by the said Board. 23.

Once such expert body has accepted the equivalence of the 12th Class examination passed by petitioner in West Hartford Board of Education, Connecticut, USA, as equivaient to Intermediate examination conducted by the said Board, it is not open to the 2"d respondent-University to doubt it on any ground.

21.

ln Tariq Islam u. Aligarh Muslim Uniuersitgl lhe Supreme Court held that in academic matters which lal1 within ' :oo t1a'; scc s.to

domain of experts, Courts should not normaily interfere. It held:

"7, In Uniuerstty of Mgsore v, C,D, Gouinda Rao4 the appointment of one Anniah Gowda was set aside by the High Court on the basis that he did not satisfy the qualification that he "must possess either a hrst or a high second class Master's degree of an Indian university". This Court stated that norma1ly, it is wise and sa-fe for the courts to leave the decision of academic matters to experts who are more familiar u,ith the problems they face than the courts generally are.

Area of interference by courts would be limited to whether the appointment made by the academic body had contravened any statutory or brnding rule and while doing so, the court should show due regard to the opinion expressed by the experts and on whose recommendations the academic body had acted and not to treat such expert body as a quasi-judicial tribunal, deciding disputes referred to it for decision. Dquiualence of a quatification pertains purelg to an academic matter and courts uould naturallg hesitate to express a defi.nite opinion, particularlg, wlwn it appears that the experts Luere satisfied thot the equiuatence has alreadg been considered and declared by lt. This view has been reiterated by this Court in several decisions on the question of equivalence of qualfications including the one io Rajendra Prdsd.

d Mathur v, Kamataka UnioersitgF." 25.

Admittedly, the petitioner had appeared for the NEET Examination and has qualified therein, thereby dispelling any doubt about her knowiedge of Bio1ory, Physics and Chemistry.

t atR 1965 sc 491 5 1986 Supp Scc ?40

26.

We therefore, reject the contention of the Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents 1 and 2 that petitioner is not eligible for admission to the MBBS Course. 27.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and a Writ of Mandamus is issued declaring the action of the 2nd respondent-University in treating the petitioner as ineligible for admission into MBBS Course for academic year 2O2O-21 under Management Quota Category-C(NRI) as i11ega1, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and a direction is issued to the 2"d respondent to provide the petitioner admission into the MBBS Course under Management Quota C(NRI) Category forthwith without raising any objection with regard to the proof ol study of Biological Science subject in the qualilying examination. No order as to costs. 28.

IA.No.2 of 2O2O is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, sha11 stand closed. SD ASSISTA K.

NKAIAH R ISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, .1 . The Principal secretary, Medical and Health Family welfare Department, State of TelanqanaSecretariatBuildings,Hyderabad ..

2 il;RZg,.6i-Xifoji f.'tiraraya-na R'ao Un_iversity of Health Sciences, Warangal.

5. f.n" S"dr"tary, Teldngana Siate Board of lntermediate Education, Nampally, Hyderabad a oire CC to Sri P tvlehar Srinivasa Rao Advocate [OPUC] s. One CC to Sri D.L. PANDU S.C FOR TSBIE [OPUC]

6. i;; ccrlo Ao-orrrorunr_ novocArE GENERAL, High court for the State of Telangana (OUT)

7. Two CD CoPies Avs

HIGH COURT MSR,.J & TA,J DATED: 3111212020 1 gE ST4)4q a)o 31DEC m0 6) .l oE sF'i

ORDER

t.A. NO. 2 0F 2020 IN/AND WP.No.23953 of 2020 ALLOWING OF THE WRIT PETITION AND DISMISSING THE I.A NO. 2 OF 2O2O WITHOUT COSTS q )A1,,t: