Ganta Sowmya vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in permitting the petitioner to appear for the Final BDS examinations on the ground that she has crossed the stipulated eight-year academic period. The petitioner is also challenging the proceedings dated 18.09.2026, whereby respondent No.2 has informed the petitioner that the petitioner is not eligible to appear for further examinations and that she has to be discharged from the course. It is submitted that the petitioner joined the BDS course in the 2018-19 batch and was required to complete the course by 15.09.2026.

It is submitted that the academic schedule for the examinations was not followed by the respondent-University, thereby denying an opportunity to the petitioner to appear for the examinations, which ought to have been conducted as per the academic schedule, resulting in the petitioner becoming ineligible to complete the course within the eight-year period.

This Court, while considering similarly placed petitioners, had permitted the petitioners therein to appear for the examinations, considering the extended academic tenure beyond the period of twelve months. It is submitted that the case of the petitioner is similarly placed with that of the petitioners in W.P.No.26899 and batch of 2026.

The learned Standing counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that the petitioner has a shortage of attendance and that, in the event of a shortage of attendance beyond 90 days, the petitioner would have to apply for readmission and seek the permission of the respondent-University. It is also submitted that, in the absence of the requisite attendance, the University cannot permit the petitioner to appear for the examinations.

In reply, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4-college submits that the petitioner was permitted to attend the college from March, 2026 and was also issued a certificate of attendance. However, the respondent No.4 has stated that, though the petitioner had attended the college, she is not entitled to appear for the examinations, as she has not completed the BDS course within the eight-year period.

This Court directed the learned Standing counsel to obtain specific instructions with regard to the attendance certificate issued by respondent No.4. The learned Standing counsel submitted that they have not received any information or any corresponding from respondent No.4 with regard to the attendance of the petitioner.

Be that as it may, considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case of the petitioner is on par with the other BDS students who could not complete their BDS course within the eight-year period on account of the respondent-University not following the academic schedule and not conducting the examinations in accordance with the academic schedule, the petitioner is entitled for similar relief.

On these considerations this Court is inclined to direct the respondent authorities to permit the petitioner to appear for the BDS Final Examinations scheduled to commence from 22.10.2026.

With the above direction, the present writ petition stands disposed off. There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.