Telangana High Court
WP/24181/2006 of Hidayat Ali, Vs The A.P.State Council for Higher Education, on 28 December 2006
MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 24181 of 2006 DATED: 28-12-2006 Between: Hidayat Ali, S/o Shaik Ali, R/o 19-3-42/ A , Jahanuma, Hyderabad. .... PETITIONER AND The A.P. State Council for Higher Education, Masab Tank, Hyderabad & 2 others. ...RESPONDENTS ORDER: This Writ
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY
WRIT PETITION No: 24181 of 2006
DATED: 28-12-2006
Between:Hidayat Ali,S/o Shaik Ali,R/o 19-3-42/A, Jahanuma,Hyderabad.
AND
.... PETITIONER
The A.P. State Council for Higher Education,Masab Tank, Hyderabad & 2 others.
...RESPONDENTS
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus declaringthe action of the 1[st] respondent in disapproving the admission of thepetitioner into M.B.A. course in the 3[rd] respondent college for theacademic years, 2006-07, as illegal and arbitrary.
Petitioner was admitted by the 3[rd] respondent-Management intoM.B.A. course in ‘B’ category seats. When the 3[rd] respondent submittedproposals for approval the 1[st] respondent has rejected the approval byimpugned order, dated 11-11-2000, inLr.No.APSCHE/Secy/CETS/ICET-2006/OU/Presidency on twogrounds, namely, that he is not qualified in the common entrance test;and also he is not having 50% marks in degree.
It is the case of the petitioner that inasmuch as the candidatewas admitted in M.B.A.Course in ‘B’ category he need not be qualifiedin the common entrance test. With regard to the second objection, it isstated that the University has issued proceedings that inasmuch as thepetitioner has secured 49.89% in B.Com., it has to be rounded off to50%.
Learned standing Counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent hasplaced before this Court a letter, dated 30-11-2006, inLr.No.APSCHE/Secy/CETS/ICET –2006/OU/Presidency/2, stating thatsubsequent to filing of the petition the 1[st] respondent also accepted therecommendation of the University for treating the percentage of markssecured by the petitioner rounding off to 50% though he actually got49.89%, and issued proceedings in this regard permitting the petitionerto appear for examinations.
No.APSCHE/Secy/CETS/ICET–2006/OU/Presidency/2, I dispose ofthe Writ Petition setting aside the order, dated 11-11-2006, directing the respondents to approve the admission of thepetitioner into the M.B.A. course and allow him to write theexaminations. No order as to costs.
______________________
R. SUBHASH REDDY,J
28[th] December, 2006.tsy