Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/1811/2026 of P HARI PRIT Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 1 April 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION No.1811 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:-52 [3446] P. Hari Prit ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Petitioner : Sri K. V. Raghu Veer Advocate for Respondents : Learned G.P. for Medical, Health
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.
APHC010027822026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
WRIT PETITION No.1811 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:-52
P. Hari Prit ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Petitioner : Sri K. V. Raghu Veer Advocate for Respondents : Learned G.P. for Medical, Health and Family Welfare, Smt Tata Venkata Sridevi, learned Standing Counsel for Dr.N.T.R. University of Health Sciences.
CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO DATE : 2nd April 2026 P C : Pursuant to our order dated 22.01.2026, whereby, we had directed the respondents to examine the matter by a different set of examiners through examining the representation of the petitioner with regard to Physiology Paper-I and Physiology Paper-II, the matter was examined and the Expert Committee has submitted a report, which is placed before us, which would indicate that insofar as Physiology Paper-I is concerned, option ‘C’ in question No.4 was the correct answer but the answer sheet which is also produced before us reflects that the petitioner, contrary to his claim, had not opted for option ‘C’ but opted ‘A’ and therefore, even when the option ‘C’ was correctly answered in the key, no benefit would show to the petitioner.
2. In regard to Physiology Paper-II and in particular, question No.5, the contention of the petitioner that the correct option was option ‘A’ has been accepted and according to the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent University, benefit of that particular question has been given to the petitioner, who has since been declared as pass in Physiology Paper-II.
3. Be that as it may, no further orders are required to be passed in the present petition, which is, accordingly, closed. No order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J AMD
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.1811 of 2026
Dt:02.04.2026
AMD