K Kiran Thomson, Kurnool Dist v. The State Of Ap, Guntur Dist And 6 Others

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN WRIT PETITION No.38322 of 2017 ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Sri Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan) This Writ Petition is filed seeking a declaration that respondents 2 and 3 ought to have cancelled the admissions granted under sports quota for the first year MBBS course which commenced in the academic year 2017-2018. 2.

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh as well as the learned counsel who appears for the proposed additional 12th respondent.

3.

At the outset, we may notice that there is an interim application seeking impleadment of the persons who are selected and admitted under sports quota. That application was instituted in December 2017. By that time, the admissions were closed. Nobody could have been admitted thereafter. The petitioner also could not have been admitted even if the sports quota selections are set aside, since with passage of time there could have been no further admission into the MBBS course. 4.

The application for impleadment of additional respondents is filed pointing out that they are the persons who are the beneficiaries of the alleged illegal action of the third

respondent/Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh and respondents 4 and 5, who are its officers.

5.

The trump-card of the petitioner is a communication addressed by the sixth respondent/General Secretary of the Andhra Pradesh Olympic Association to the Vice Chairman and Managing Director of the Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh, who is also one of the Board Members of the third respondent. Learned counsel for the Sports Authority submits that the said person was also involved in the process of finalizing the list of sports persons who could come under the sports quota. 6.

Be that as it may, we are of the view that at this point of time nothing worthwhile can be secured by the petitioner in this personal litigation, since he cannot come into any seat even if a sports quota candidate is found to have been given admission under such quota in violation of the norms.

7.

We may record the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the proposed additional 12th respondent that her client was selected and admitted to the MBBS course as general merit candidate and not the one who stood with the support of the sports quota.

8.

For the aforesaid reasons, we do not propose to examine, or find in this case, any ground to interfere with the impugned selection of sports quota and allotment of seats under that quota for the academic year 2017-2018 in the medical colleges

under the second respondent University. For this reason, the Writ Petition fails.

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions pending in this Writ Petition, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________________________ THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, CJ _______________________________________ V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J 02.08.2018 vs