High CourtsDivision Bench(2023) 03 AP CK 0030

Mekala Hima Anvitha & Others vs Union Of India & Others

Andhra Pradesh High Court · Decided on 20 March 2023

HON’BLE JUDGES
Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ · R. Raghunandan Rao, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 6808 Of 2023

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 295 words

Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ

1.

This writ petition would call in question the constitutional validity of Regulation 4(1) of the Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997.

2.

According to the petitioners, fixation of minimum age of 17 years as eligibility criteria to appear for National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) under Regulation 4(1) of the Medical Council of India Regulations, is violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the said Regulation has to be struck down.

3.

The issue in the present writ petition is no longer res integra as the same has been considered time and again by the composite High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, firstly in the case of Master Alli Sai Deepak v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department and others, reported in 2013(4) ALT 643 and thereafter, in the case of Kandula Yamini Saraswathi v. Union of India Rep., by its Secretary, Government of India, Medical and Health Department, New Delhi and others, reported in (2017) 2 ALT 101.

4.

In the judgment rendered in Master Alli Sai Deepak (supra), it was clearly held by a Division Bench that fixation of minimum age of 17 years as eligibility criteria to participate in the subject examination does not offend the equality clause of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The said judgment has been followed by another Division Bench subsequently in the matter of Kandula Yamini Saraswathi (supra).

5.

Since the issue raised in the present writ petition has already been considered and decided, this Court is of the view that this writ petition is not maintainable.

6.

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. All the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.