Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/11177/2026 of NEELAPU MANEESHA Vs THE UNION OF INDIA on 24 June 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 11177 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:-65 [3580] Neelapu Maneesha ...Petitioner Vs. The Union of India and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. Thandava Yogesh Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): Ms. M. Iswarya representing Mr.
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.
APHC010222182026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
WRIT PETITION NO: 11177 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:-65
Neelapu Maneesha ...Petitioner Vs. The Union of India and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. Thandava Yogesh Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): Ms. M. Iswarya representing Mr. Vivek Chandra Sekhar S, Mr. Josyula Bhaskara Rao
CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO DATE : 25th June, 2026. Per R. Raghunandan Rao, J (Oral):
The petitioner herein who had pursued her M.B.B.S. course outside India sought to appear for the Foreign Medical Graduate Examination (FMGE). However, she was not being granted the Eligibility Certificate (EC). Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had approached this Court by way of the present Writ Petition.
2. Primary dispute was whether the petitioner would be governed by the Regulations as they stand amended with effect from 01.03.2018 or the earlier Regulations.
HCJ & RRRJ WP_11177_2026
3. The contention of the petitioner was that, she would be governed by the Regulations as amended with effect from 01.03.2018 and that she had cleared the N.E.E.T. examination, after which she had proceeded to travel abroad and had undertaken medical course, due to which she would be entitled for an Eligibility Certificate (EC).
4. In that view of the matter, this Court vide order dated 23.04.2026, had issued the following directions:
“Be that as it may, we direct the respondent No.2 to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of a formal Eligibility Certificate in favour of the petitioner in accordance with the Rules which would be applicable in the instant case. This would be without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to claim that the said certificate is not required at all. The respondent No.3 is also directed to permit the petitioner to take the requisite exam, and after accepting the application form without insisting on the production of the Eligibility Certificate.”
5. Sri Josyula Bhaskara Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents would submit that Eligibility Certificate has been given to the petitioner and thereafter, an admit card has also been given to the petitioner to appear for the said examination.
6. Sri Thandava Yogesh, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly concedes that an admit card has been given to the petitioner and she would be able to appear for the examination that is to be conducted on 28.06.2026.
7. In view of the fact that grievance of the petitioner has been addressed, nothing further would survive in the present Writ Petition.
HCJ & RRRJ WP_11177_2026
8. Accordingly, Writ Petition is closed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of accordingly.
LISA GILL, CJ. R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J. SSN
Whether the order is Speaking/Reasoned
: Yes / No Whether the order is Reportable
: Yes / No