A KRISHNA VENI Vs. REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a medical graduate. She appeared for post graduate medical entrance test, 2003 held on 31.12.2003. She belongs to BC(D) category and in the entrance test, she obtained rank 628. She appeared for selections. In the first counseling, she was admitted to DGO course at Kurnool Medical College as a local candidate of Sri. Venkateswara University (SVU) local area. In M.D (Anaesthesia), in the first counseling, the BC candidate with rank 262 belonging to Andhra University (AU) local area was admitted to the unreserved (non-local) seat as a service candidate in Osmania Medical College. The candidate with rank 21 was also admitted in OC unreserved seat in Osmania Medical College. Thus, during the first selections, fifteen (15) seats in Osmania University (OU) local area were filled up, out of which, two seats were unreserved and both the seats were allotted to AU local area candidates, who were treated as non-local candidates in relation to OU local area.

(2.) Respondents 1 and 2 again called for selections on 14.02.2004, in so far as the seats that fell vacant. Be it noted, candidates with rank numbers 21, 252 and 262, who were selected in unreserved seats as well as OC local seats, did not join the course. It is the case of the petitioner that on 27.02.2004, in the selections held for filling up resultant vacancy when the petitioners turn came, she was called when one seat in M.D. (Anaesthesia) vacated by BC(D) service non-local candidate was available. Though the petitioner opted for the said seat, she was not admitted to the seat but the seat was given to the third respondent, who is BC(D) service local candidate in relation to OU local area. Assailing the said action of the respondents 1 and 2, the petitioner filed the writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to admit the petitioner in M.D. (Aneasthesia) for the academic year 2003-04.

(3.) This Court admitted the writ petition on 29.04.2004 and ordered notice to the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 are represented by the learned standing counsel for N.T.R. University of Health Sciences (hereafter called, the University). On 06.07.2004, this Court permitted the learned counsel for the petitioner to take out notice to the third respondent. Again on 17.09.2004, this Court ordered fresh notice to the third respondent and permitted the counsel for the petitioner to take out notice. After taking out notice, a memo of proof of service of notice on the third respondent is filed, which shows that the third respondent is duly served on 22.07.2004 In spite of the same, none appears for the third respondent. Having regard to the nature of the case, the matter was heard finally.