Judgment : This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents, in prescribing the qualification in EAMCET-2012 for admissions into B.Sc (Nursing) course in respondent No.1- Institution, as illegal. I have heard Mr.C.Nageshwara Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mrs.S.Nanda, learned Standing Counsel for Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences (NIMS), appearing for the respondents. The petitioner completed her intermediate course with optionals of Botany, Zoology, Physics and Chemistry and applied to respondent No.1 for admission into B.Sc. (Nursing) course. When the petitioner was denied a seat on the ground that she could not secure the required rank in EAMCET-2012, she has questioned such action of the respondents. The main basis on which the petitioner mounted the challenge on the action of the respondents for denying her seat is that their changing the policy during the academic year 2012-13. The petitioner pleaded that till the year 2010, the respondents were conducting the NIMSET-B.Sc (N) and that during the year 2011, they have admitted the students on the basis of the marks secured in the intermediate course. According to the petitioner, while the EAMCET-2012 has not included B.Sc., (Nursing) course in its list of courses for which the entrance test was held, it is not permissible for respondent No.1- Institution to stipulate qualification in EAMCET-2012 as the eligibility criterion for admission into B.Sc., (Nursing) course conducted by it. It is the further pleaded case of the petitioner that the change in the policy of respondent No.1 was made in July, 2012 i.e, much after the EAMCET was conducted in May, 2012. The learned Standing Counsel for NIMS submitted that the academic council of respondent No.1 has passed resolution in its 64th meeting on 21-01-2012 whereunder it has resolved to follow the EAMCET ranking for admission into B.Sc., (Nursing) course from the academic year 2012-13., and that in pursuance thereof, respondent No.1 has issued the prospectus in July, 2012. It is further submitted that in pursuance of the changed policy of the respondents, 95 out of 100 seats were filled up on 18-08-2012. Respondent No.1, being an autonomous University, is entitled to evolve its own policies laying down the criteria for admission into the various courses conducted by it. It is further submitted that in pursuance of the changed policy of the respondents, 95 out of 100 seats were filled up on 18-08-2012. Respondent No.1, being an autonomous University, is entitled to evolve its own policies laying down the criteria for admission into the various courses conducted by it. I do not find any merit in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that since the EAMCET notification did not include B.Sc., (Nursing) course of respondent No.1-Institution, qualification in the EAMCET could not have been made as a criterion by respondent No.1 for admission into the said course. If respondent No.1 is satisfied with the standard of the test conducted by Dr.NTR University of Health Sciences for admission into its courses, it can prescribe the ranking in the EAMCET as the criterion for admission into its own courses. For this purpose, it is not necessary for respondent No.1 to take consent of the said University of Health Sciences, which conducts EAMCET, or to request the said University to include its courses in the notification issued by it. So long as the policy evolved by respondent No.1 is not shown to be either arbitrary, illegal or unconstitutional, denying the legitimate rights of the petitioner, she cannot question such policies. Even on the facts of the case, the petitioner has not suffered any prejudice because she has also appeared for EAMCET and the rank obtained by her was not enough to secure a seat in B.Sc., (Nursing) course in Respondent No.1-Institution. Therefore, the announcement of the criterion by respondent No.1, after holding of EAMCET did not, in any manner, affect the interests of the petitioner. The petitioner cannot plead any vested right in insisting that respondent No.1 should follow the same policy, which it has pursued during the year 2011 viz., taking the intermediate marks as the criterion for admission into B.Sc., (Nursing) course. So long as the policy evolved by respondent No.1 is uniform and does not suffer from arbitrariness, this Court will not interfere with it. As this Court is convinced that the changed policy of respondent No.1 has, in no manner, affected the rights of the petitioner, no relief can be granted to her in this Writ Petition. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, WPMP.No.36289 of 2012, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.