WP/23953/2020 of Srikeerti Reddi Pingle Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others on 31 December 2020

ORDER:

IA.No.2 of 2O2O

in/ and

WP.No.23953 of 2O2O

Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, counsel for the petitioner andthe Additional Advocate General for respondents 1 & 2.

2. The petitioner herein is a foreign national, whose father isof Indian origin and who is residing in the USA.

3. The petitioner completed Ciass-XII at Conard High Schoolur-rder West Hartford Board of trducation, Connecticut, USA.

4. She applied lor National Eligibility cum EntranceTest(NEET) Under Graduate exam u,ith Hall TicketNo.4205004360 in the Foreign National Category and securedAll India Rank 482207 and Category Rank No.159648.

5. However, the 2nd respondent-University publishedon12.I2.2O2O a list stating that petitioner is not eligible foradmission to the MBBS Course on the ground that there is noproof of study of Biological Sciences subject in the qualifyingexamination.

6. The instant writ petition has been fi1ed challenging theaction of the said 2,,d respondent in treating her as ineligible for admission into MBBS Course for academic year 2O2O-21 underfor a direction to theManagement Quota Category 'CINRI) and 2"d respondent to provide her admission in the said categoryand course.

7. Petitioner contends that the School Counselor of ConardHigh School had issued a Certificate dt.LL.72.2020 stating thatin the 10tn Grade itself the petitioner had taken the AdvancedPlacement Bioiogz course where topics1nBio-chemistry,Ce11ular Biolog;, Organismal Biologr, Population Bio1ory,Evolution, Genetics and Ecologr are taught in depth and that itis a rigorous course of study in Biologr. She has also fi1ed(1) letter dt.l4.l2.2O2O ol the West Hartford ScienceDepartment Supervisor to the same effect; (2\ Certihcatedt.22.12.2020 issued by the Consulate General of India, Ner,,'York that the 72 year High School Diploma obtained by thepetitioner in the USA is recogeized in India as equivalent topre-University(2 year course) new Intermediate Course; and (3)also a Certificate dt.23.72.2o20 issued by the Telangana StateBoard of Intermediate Education, Hyderabad that the 12tnClass/Senior Secondary Examination of West Hartford Board ofEducation, Connecticut, USA, is equivalent to IntermediateExamination conducted by the said Board.

B. In vieu' of these documents, the petitioner asserts that theview of the 2"a respondent that petitioner did not studyBiological Sciences is not correct.

9. On the basis of this submission, a Division Benchpresided over by the Hon'ble Chief Justice had granted aninterim direction on 24.12.2O2O to the respondents to permither to participate in the counseling to be conducted lor theleltover seats without raising any objection with regard to theproof of study of Biological Science subject in the qualilyingexamlnatron.

10. IA.No.3 of 2O2O is filed by the respondents in the WritPetition to vacate the said order.

1 1. The counsel for the petitioner contended that the verybasis of holding the petitioner ineligible for admission by the2rd respondent-University has no basis in view of thedocumentary evidence available on record; and that once theBoard of Intermediate Education has certified on 23.12.2020that the 12th Class High School Diploma secured by thepetitioner1Sequivalent to the Intermediate Examinationconducted by the Telangana State Board of IntermediateEducation, it is not open to the 2na respondent to prevent thepetitioner from securing admission.

1,2. Attention of the Court is also drawn to the Notificationissued by the 2"d respondent-University for Admission intoManagement Quota(B Category, C Category/NRl) seats inPrivate Unaided Non-minority/Minority Medical Colleges, Private Unaided Non-Minority Dental colleges and Army dentalcollege for MBBS/BDS Courses lor the academic year 2020-21.

13. In the above notihcation under the head it is"E1igibi1ity", stated in clause (c) that foreign students/NRl candidates/OCIcard holders are eligible for admissions into MBBS and BDScourses under Management Quota Category-C seats; andcandidates should specifically put the option for NRI Categoryin the online application to be considered for the NRi/CCategory. Clause(e) states that candidates should have passedIntermediate (10+2 pattern) or its equivalent examination withPhysics, Chemistry, Biologr(Botany, Zoologr)/Bio-technologrand English. Under the head "V" which deals with "procedureof filling online application, scanning/uploading of originalcertifi.cates and online paAment for registratiorl', it is stated inclause(h)-"equiualence certificate from Board of IntermediateEducation, Government of Telangana(if passed qualifying examother than AP/TS/CBSE/ICSE)" should be uploaded along withother documents referred to therein.

14. Admittedly, the petitioner has complied with the same bymaking available equivalence certificate dt.23.12.2020 from theBoard of Intermediate Education certilying that her study olClass-XII at Conard High School under West Hartford Board ofEducation, Connecticut, USA, is equivalent to the IntermediateExamination conducted by the Telangana State Board ofIntermediate Education.

1 5. The Additional Advocate General appearing for therespondents I and 2 however contends that notwithstandingthe same, the petitioner cannot be treated as eligible and refersto Medical Council of India regulations on Graduate MedicalEducation, 1997(amended up to May, 2018) to contend that acandidate has to study Biological Sciences, Physics, Chemistryin English as compulsory subjects in 11,n and 12tr, standards orintermediate or equivalent course; that petitioner had studiedthe subject of Bioiogical Sciences in lOtt'Grade(1Otn class) andshe has not studied the subject ol Biological Sciences in 11thand 12th Grades though she had studied Physics, Chemistryand English in 11th and 12th Grades.to Medical Council of India regulations on Graduate MedicalEducation, 1997(amended up to May, 2018) to contend that acandidate has to study Biological Sciences, Physics, Chemistryin English as compulsory subjects in 11,n and 12tr, standards orintermediate or equivalent course; that petitioner had studiedthe subject of Bioiogical Sciences in lOtt'Grade(1Otn class) andshe has not studied the subject ol Biological Sciences in 11thand 12th Grades though she had studied Physics, Chemistryand English in 11th and 12th Grades.

16. He further contends that the Equivalence Certificate dt.23.12.2020 issued by the Telangana State Board ofIntermediate Education, Hyderabad, does not specify that thepetitioner had studied Biological Sciences, Physics andChemistry in 11th and l2th Standards which equal toIntermediate and which is a pre-requisite for admission intoMBBS Course as per the above regulations of the MCI.

17 . Firstly, we wish to point out that this was not the reasonassigned in the Ineligibility List dt. 12.12.2020 by the lnare spondent-University. Its remark was "no proof of study ofBiological Sciences subject in quaiifying examinations".

18. There was no mention at all about the validity of theequivalence certificate dt.23.72.2020 issued by the TelanganaState Board of Intermediate Education, Hyderabad, to thepetitioner therein.

19. The 2"d respondent therefore cannot improve and add newgrounds to support its inclusion of the petitioner1ntheineligibility list dt.12.l2.2O2O by filing a counter alfidavit in theWrit Petition.

20. In Mohinder Singh Gill v.Chief Election Commr.1, the Supreme Court held that a statutory order passed by a publicauthority cannot be defended by new reasons lurnished by wa1'of separate affidavits subsequently and they must be construedonly on the basis of their contents and nothing e1se. It held:

"8.........u.then a statutory functionary makes an order based oncertain grounds, its ualidity must be judged by the reasons socertain grounds, its ualidity must be judged by the reasons somentioned and cannot be supplemented bg fresh reasons in theshape of affidauit or otheru-tise. Othenuise, an order bad in thebegtnntng mag, by the time it comes to court on account of achallenge, get ualidated bg additionat grounds later brought out. Webegtnntng mag, by the time it comes to court on account of achallenge, get ualidated bg additionat grounds later brought out. Wemay here draLu attention to the obseruations of Bose, J. inGordhandas Bhanji2:Gordhandas Bhanji2:

"Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutoryauthoitg cannot be construed tn the light of explanationssubsequently giuen bg the officer making the order of tuhat henteant, or of u.that uas tn his mind, or u.that he tntended to do.Public orders made bg public authonties are meant to hauepublic effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct ' [1978(l) ][scc ][405]

' [atn ][tgs2 ][sqt ][6]

of those to uthom they are addressed and must be construedobjecttuelg wtth reference to the longuage used in tlrc orderitself."

Orders are not like old wine becoming better as theg grout older."

21. Secondly, the doubt about the petitioner studyingBiolog, has already been clarified by the Certihcatedt.11..12.2020 of the Conard High School Counselor and alsoCertilrcate dt.I4.I2.2O2O ol the West Hartford ScienceDepartment Supervisor.

22. Moreover, the expert body i.e. the Telangana StateBoard of Intermediate Education, Hyderabad, had certified thatthe 12th Ciass examination petitioner passed in West HartfordBoard of Education, Connecticut, USA, is equivalent toIntermediate examination conducted by the said Board.

23. Once such expert body has accepted the equivalenceof the 12th Class examination passed by petitioner in WestHartford Board of Education, Connecticut, USA, as equivaientto Intermediate examination conducted by the said Board, it isnot open to the 2"d respondent-University to doubt it on anyground.

21. ln Tariq Islam u. Aligarh Muslim Uniuersitgl lhe Supreme Court held that in academic matters which lal1 within domain of experts, Courts should not normaily interfere. Itheld:

"7, In Uniuerstty of Mgsore v, C,D, Gouinda Rao4 theappointment of one Anniah Gowda was set aside by the HighCourt on the basis that he did not satisfy the qualification thathe "must possess either a hrst or a high second class Master'sdegree of an Indian university". This Court stated thatnorma1ly, it is wise and sa-fe for the courts to leave the decisionof academic matters to experts who are more familiar u,ith theproblems they face than the courts generally are. Area ofinterference by courts would be limited to whether theappointment made by the academic body had contravened anystatutory or brnding rule and while doing so, the court shouldshow due regard to the opinion expressed by the experts andon whose recommendations the academic body had acted andnot to treat such expert body as a quasi-judicial tribunal,deciding disputes referred to it for decision. Dquiualence of aquatification pertains purelg to an academic matter and courtsuould naturallg hesitate to express a defi.nite opinion,particularlg, wlwn it appears that the experts Luere satisfied thotthe equiuatence has alreadg been considered and declared by lt.This view has been reiterated by this Court in several decisionson the question of equivalence of qualfications including theone io Rajendra Prdsd.d Mathur v, Kamataka UnioersitgF."

25. Admittedly, the petitioner had appeared for theNEET Examination and has qualified therein, thereby dispellingany doubt about her knowiedge of Bio1ory, Physics andChemistry.

t atR 1965 sc 4915 1986 Supp Scc ?40atR 1965 sc 4915 1986 Supp Scc ?40

26.

26. We therefore, reject the contention of the AdditionalAdvocate General appearing for respondents 1 and 2 thatpetitioner is not eligible for admission to the MBBS Course.

27. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and a Writof Mandamus is issued declaring the action of the 2ndrespondent-University in treating the petitioner as ineligible foradmission into MBBS Course for academic year 2O2O-21 underManagement Quota Category-C(NRI) as i11ega1, arbitrary andviolative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and adirection is issued to the 2"d respondent to provide thepetitioner admission into the MBBS Course under ManagementQuota [C(NRI) ][Category ][forthwith without raising ][any ][objection]with regard to the proof ol study of Biological Science subject inthe qualilying examination. No order as to costs.

28. IA.No.2 of 2O2O is dismissed. Miscellaneouspetitions pending if any, sha11 stand closed.

SDK.NKAIAHASSISTARISTRAR//TRUE COPY//SECTION OFFICER

To,.1 . The Principal secretary, Medical and Health Family welfare Department, State ofTelanqanaSecretariatBuildings,Hyderabad ..

TelanqanaSecretariatBuildings,Hyderabad ..2 il;RZg,.6i-Xifoji [f.'tiraraya-na ][R'ao Un_iversity ][of ][Health Sciences, ][Warangal.]5. f.n" S"dr"tary, [Teldngana Siate ][Board ][of lntermediate Education, ][Nampally,]Hyderabada oire CC to Sri P tvlehar Srinivasa [Rao ][Advocate ][OPUC]s. One CC to Sri D.L. [PANDU S.C ][FOR ][TSBIE ][OPUC]6. i;; ccrlo Ao-orrrorunr_ [novocArE ][GENERAL, ][High ][court ][for ][the ][State ][of]Telangana [(OUT)]7. Two CD CoPiesAvs2 il;RZg,.6i-Xifoji [f.'tiraraya-na ][R'ao Un_iversity ][of ][Health Sciences, ][Warangal.]5. f.n" S"dr"tary, [Teldngana Siate ][Board ][of lntermediate Education, ][Nampally,]Hyderabada oire CC to Sri P tvlehar Srinivasa [Rao ][Advocate ][OPUC]s. One CC to Sri D.L. [PANDU S.C ][FOR ][TSBIE ][OPUC]6. i;; ccrlo Ao-orrrorunr_ [novocArE ][GENERAL, ][High ][court ][for ][the ][State ][of]Telangana [(OUT)]7. Two CD CoPiesAvs HIGH COURT

MSR,.J&TA,JDATED: [3111212020]

1[gE ][ST4)4-]q1a)o31DEC [m0]6).loE sF'i ORDERt.A. NO. 2 0F [2020]IN/ANDWP.No.23953 [of ][2020]

ALLOWING OF [THE ][WRIT ][PETITION]AND DISMISSING [THE I.A ][NO. 2 ][OF ][2O2O]WITHOUT COSTS

q)A1,,t: