AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. Habeen Abuvbakar Alhamed, learned counsel appears for the petitioner.
Mr. R.Nagarjuna Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department appears for respondent No.1.
Mr. T. Sharath, learned Standing Counsel for Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences, appears for respondent No.2.
This Writ Petition is filed for the following relief:
“...to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of “WRIT OF MANDAMUS” by declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 not considering the Petitioner’s application for Medical PG Courses 2026 in NRI Quota “C” Category and including the Petitioner’s name for admission into MBBS/BDS course under “C” Category NRI Quota in a college affiliated to the Respondent No. 2 University as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently direct the Respondent No.2 to allot the seat and include the Petitioner’s name for admission into MBBS/BDS course under “C” Category NRI Quota in a college affiliated to the Respondent No.2 University and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not register himself under Management Quota ‘C’ NRI category for admission into BDS Course for the academic year 2026-27, as the Bank Statement stands in the name of petitioner’s father while the NRI Certificate and Declaration were in the name of petitioner’s mother. He submits that the petitioner has obtained NRI Certificate and relevant documents and preferred a representation before respondent No.2-University on 30.09.2026 to permit him to register under Management Quota ‘C’ NRI Category for BDS admission, but the same has not yet been considered. He further submitted that respondent No.2-University be directed to decide the said representation in a time bound manner.
Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-University submitted that the petitioner’s representation shall be dealt with by respondent No.2-University in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the instant Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent No.2-University to decide the petitioner’s representation dated 30.09.2026 as per the grounds taken in it and in accordance with law, by passing a reasoned order before the next counselling. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.