AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan)
Petitioners challenge tentative priority list published by 3rd respondent Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh (“SAAP”), for the purpose of admission into MBBS and BDS Courses for the academic year 2026-27 under sports and games category, as notified in File. No.5156/MBBS/BDS/EA1/2026 (Sports), dated 01.10.2026, whereby 1st petitioner was refused to be assigned any priority despite participation in National level fencing championship as well as State level selections on the ground that 5th respondent Association was not recognized by SAAP for the years 2024 and 2025.
1st petitioner is minor student and 2nd petitioner is her mother. 1st petitioner secured an All India Rank of 992700 in the NEET-UG 2026 examination. It is stated that 1st petitioner participated at both State and National levels in fencing sport during the years 2024 and 2025. Further, she also has backup certificates of participation in inter-district championships. 1st petitioner applied for admission into MBBS and BDS courses for academic year 2026–27 under Sports and Games category. 1st petitioner was even subjected to skill test, and thereafter, in the tentative priority list published, she had been placed at serial No.156 with remarks that, in view of 5th respondent State Association not being recognized for the years 2024 and 2025, no priority was assigned, thus, challenging non-consideration of certificates of participation at State and National levels, present writ petition is filed.
Mr.R.Yella Reddy, learned counsel, representing Ms.Ravi Varalakshmi, learned counsel for petitioners, contended that in similar facts and circumstances, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Krishnamsetty Praneetha v. State of A.P1, since held that notwithstanding State Association's recognition not renewed for the year 2024, petitioner therein, who played at State level as well as National level, was thus entitled to be considered assigning appropriate priority, urged for issuing similar direction.
Mr. G.Sai Narayana Rao, learned Standing Counsel for SAPP, appearing for 3rd respondent, relied on the common order passed by us in Pothuraju Ajay Jain v. State of A.P.2 to contend that issue raised in present writ petition is squarely covered against petitioners, in which even the order sought to be relied upon by petitioners was also dealt with, and thus pleaded for dismissal of writ petition.
In Pothuraju Ajay Jain2, this Court examined similar issue with reference to requirement of State and District Sports Associations possessing recognition with SAAP for the purpose of issuing sports certificates, and right of candidates possessing certificates issued by State Associations otherwise not recognized.
While negating the stand of petitioners therein, it has been held as under:
“19.Be that as it may, as there is no challenge to said G.O., we are of the considered view that State and District Sports Associations not recognized by SAAP are ineligible to issue sports certificates to any of participants, and even if any such certificates are issued, candidates possessing the same will not be entitled for claiming benefits under sports quota either for admission in educational institutions or employment.
23.The State Association has not even sought for renewal of recognition after 2022, except for the year 2024-25. Therefore, no exception can be carved out to extend benefit in favour of petitioners.
24.In both the above orders in Yalla Nischala v. State of A.P [Order, dt.17.11.2025, in W.P.No.32014 of 2025 (APHC)) and Eslavathu Modita Para v. State of A.P. [Order, dt.14.11.2026, in I.A.No.4 of 2025 in W.P.No.28438 of 2025 (APHC)], though Coordinate Bench of this Court had directed to consider certificates of participation granted in favour of petitioners therein at National level notwithstanding State Association did not have recognition from SAAP, we notice that these orders did not consider and deal with the effect of Clause C(3) of G.O.Ms.No.272, dated 19.09.2019, which places prohibition in issuance of certificates by unrecognized State Associations and any credence being given to such certificates in the process of securing admissions. Thus, aforesaid two orders do not come to aid of petitioners.”
It is not in dispute that 5th respondent Association has not been granted recognition for the years 2024 and 2025, thus, issue raised in present writ petition is squarely covered against them.
We, therefore, do not find any merit in writ petition, accordingly, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.