KOLLI SUNITHA Vs. KAKATIYA UNIVERSITY WARANGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners question the action of the respondent in not admitting them into the First Year of M.Sc. (Mathematics) Course in the Colleges, within the jurisdiction of the respondent-Univesity. The petitioners passed B.Sc. (Mathematics) course from various colleges in Kammam District. The University conducted entrance examinations, for selection of candidates for admission into various post-graduate courses, for the academic year 2005-06. The petitioners appeared in the entrance examination. The 1st petitioner secured 57 marks, and petitioners 2 and 3 secured 53 marks, each, in the entrance examination. They claim to have studied for four consecutive years, preceding the year, in which they appeared in the qualifying examiantion, within the Osmania and Kakatiya University local area. All of them belong to Schedule Caste category.

(2.) The petitioners contend that they received the rank cards/intimation slips, indicating that the counselling for admission against reserved categories would be undertaken on 06-08-2005 in the Kakatiya University Campus. They state that they attended the counselling and submitted their bio-data forms supplied to them. According to the petitioners, when they appeared before the concerned authorities, together with the necessary certificates, they were not selected and provided admission, on the ground that they cannot be treated as local candidates. It is their case that they are the local candidates, as defined under the Presidential Order, and that even if they were have to be treated as non-locals, they were entitled to be allotted seats as non-local candidates in the S.C category. The petitioners contend that they have approached the University authorities on 09-08-2005, by which time several seats are vacant, and despite the same, they were denied admission.

(3.) The Registrar of the University filed counter affidavit in the writ petition. The admission procedure is narrated, in brief. It is stated that the petitioners attended the counselling; they were issued bio- data forms and submitted the same, but did not turn up, when their names were called, repeatedly. It is pleaded that left with no alternative, the counselling was proceeded with, by considering the cases of other candidates. Except this the respondent did not plead any other ground, for denial of admission to the petitioners. By referring to some of the Rules, incorporated in the Information Brochure, it is pleaded that the petitioners rendered themselves ineligible to be considered at subsequent stages, on account of their absence in the first phase counselling.