Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/4413/2026 of Kollapu Samuel Swaroop, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 1 April 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION No.4413 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:-53 [3446] Kollapu Samuel Swaroop ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Petitioner : Sri Pilli Sundeep Advocate for Respondents : Learned Government Pleader
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.
APHC010075342026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
WRIT PETITION No.4413 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:-53
Kollapu Samuel Swaroop ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Petitioner : Sri Pilli Sundeep Advocate for Respondents : Learned Government Pleader 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 :
The contention of the petitioner in this case is similar to the contention of the petitioner which came up for consideration of this Court in Writ Petition No.1811 of 2026 in regard to the correct answers in Physiology Paper-I in question No.4 and question No.5 in Physiology Paper-II.
2. The Committee has since submitted its report which we have considered in W.P.No.1811 of 2026. The Committee had opined that option ‘C’ in question No.4 insofar as Physiology Paper-I was the correct answer but the answer sheet, which is also produced before us, reflects that the petitioner had not opted for option ‘C’ but opted ‘A’. In regard to Physiology Paper-II and in particular, question No.5, the contention of the petitioner that the correct option was ‘A’ has been accepted.
3. Be that as it may, the respondent University to examine the case of the petitioner herein in the light of the report of the Expert Committee and benefit of marks be accordingly given to the petitioner if he has answered the questions rightly. Needful be done in ten (10) days.
4. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. 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.4413 of 2026
Dt:02.04.2026
AMD