SEPURI MADHURI Vs. NTR UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DR. NTR University of Health Sciences, A. P, Vijayawada-1st respondent issued notification for admission to Super Speciality Courses (DM and M. Ch.) for the academic Session 2008-2009. The method of selection for admission of candidates to Super Speciality Courses (DM and M. Ch.) for the Academic Session 2008-2009 is by way of entrance test. Dr. (Miss) Sepuri Madhuri- petitioner and Dr. Yeluri sudha Rani-3rd respondent appeared for the entrance test held on 29. 06. 2008. Both of them secured 66 marks in the entrance test. They competed for admission for a seat in DM (Endocrinology ). The eligibility under relevant qualifying examination for admission in DM (Endocrinology) is MD (General Medicine or paediatrics or Biochemistry ). The petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent got eligibility for admission in DM (Endocrinology) since they did MD in biochemistry. Since both secured 66 secured marks in the entrance test, there was a tie between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. In view of the tie, the 1st respondent University has invoked Rule 7. 6 of the prospectus, which reads that if two candidates get equal marks in the entrance test, marks obtained in MBBS upto two decimal places shall be taken into consideration for fixing the merit of the candidates. By invoking the Rule 7. 6 of the prospectus, the 1st respondent University selected the 3rd respondent for the seat in DM (Endocrinology) in Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam. According to the petitioner, Rule 7. 6 of the prospectus is contrary to Rule 7 of the A. P. Regulation of Admission to Super Specialities in the Medical Colleges Rules, 1983 (for short, 'the Super Specialities Rules, 1983'), which are framed by the governor in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3 read with sub-section (1)of Section 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 (for short, 'the A. P. Act 5 of 1983') and therefore, the seat in DM (Endocrinology) allotted to the 3rd respondent is liable to be set aside and instead the petitioner is to be given the seat in DM (Endocrinology ). The petitioner asserts that she secured more number of marks i. e. 231 marks out of 400 marks in medicine subjects in mbbs and whereas the 3rd respondent secured only 216 marks out of 400 marks in medicine subjects in MBBS and therefore, she is to be preferred in view of Rule 7 of the Super Specialities Rules, 1983. Hence, she filed the writ petition with a prayer to declare Rule 7. 6 of the prospectus for admission to Super speciality (Second PG) Courses in the Medical Colleges of Andhra Pradesh for the year 2008-2009 as illegal and contrary to the Super Specialities Rules, 1983 and consequently set aside the selection of the 3rd respondent for the course of DM (Endocrinology) and to accord the seat to her.

(2.) NOTICE before admission came to be ordered on 01. 08. 2008. 1st respondent filed counter-affidavit. Y. Kotaiah, Registrar In-charge of Dr. NTR university of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, has sworn to the counter-affidavit. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that 1st respondent University was established in the year 1986 after the legislation of NTR University of Health sciences Act, 1986 (for short, 'the Act 6 of 1986' ). Before establishment of the 1st respondent University, the State Government framed rules in the year 1983 in respect of admission into Super Speciality Courses in various Medical colleges and at that point of time only Andhra Medical College (A. U. Area) and osmania Medical College (O. U. Area) were offering Super Speciality Courses. Prior to the enactment of NTR University of Health Sciences Act, 1986, the selection committee constituted by the State Government was the competent authority to fill-up the seats. After establishment of 1st respondent university, the State Government has not framed any rules or amended the Super specialities Rules, 1983 prescribing the procedure to be followed by the 1st respondent University while making admissions into Super Speciality Courses. Therefore, 1st respondent University evolved a rational procedure and has been consistently following the same from its very inception. The first counseling for admission into Super Speciality Courses was held on 27. 07. 2008. In the counseling, two seats were filled up in the Super Speciality Course of DM (Endocrinology ). As per the prospectus, two seats were shown, one in Osmania medical College, Hyderabad and another in Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam. The merit list is prepared based on the procedure prescribed in the prospectus for admission to Super Speciality Courses (DM/m. Ch.) for the Academic Session 2008-2009. Rule 7. 5 deals with preparation of merit list of qualified candidates and Rule 7. 6 deals with breaking tie in case of two candidates getting equal marks in the entrance test. The admission rules are being following for the last 13 years i. e. from 1993-94. The 3rd respondent Dr. Sepuri madhuri got 59. 80 marks in MBBS and whereas the petitioner got 59. 68 marks in mbbs and both the candidates secured 66 marks in the entrance test conducted for super Speciality (DM/mch.) Courses for the Academic Year 2008-2009. As per Rule 7. 6 of the prospectus, if two candidates got equal marks in the entrance test, marks obtained in MBBS upto two decimal places shall be taken into consideration. Hence, the admission made in respect of the 3rd respondent is in accordance with the prospectus in the absence of the Rules framed by the State government or amending the Super Specialities Rules, 1983 prescribing specific procedure applicable to the admissions into Super speciality courses in the 1st respondent University. After enactment of the Act 6 of 1986, the 1st respondent university evolved a rational procedure and has been following the same consistently.

(3.) 3rd respondent filed counter-affidavit. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the 1st respondent University is justified in allotting seat to her by invoking Rule 7. 6 of the prospectus. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner having accepted the terms and conditions of the prospectus, appeared for the entrance test and therefore, she has no right to question the rules prescribed in the prospectus.