ORDER : M.Ganga Rao, J. The petitioner filed this writ petition to issue writ of 2nd mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not allowing him to exercise web options for PG Medical Phase-I counselling of Management quota seats for the academic year 2022-23 in respect of MD (Radio-Diagnosis) seat under the category-C (Institutional Preference-S3) in 3rd respondent college, pursuant to the notification dated 30.9.2022 issued by the 2nd respondent and in publishing the revised list of eligible candidates for admission as on 01.10.2022 under the said quota contrary to the merit position and eligibility criteria of the candidates and seeking to proceed with finalization of the said counselling without giving opportunity to the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the rules in vogue. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the 2nd respondent University has issued Notification on 16.8.2022 inviting online applications for verification from the qualified candidates in NEET PG-2022 for admission to management quota seats (Institutional preference-S3) into Post Graduate Medical & Dental Degree/Diploma courses for the academic year 2022-23 in private medical colleges. The petitioner and the impleaded 4th respondent being eligible and qualified having completed MBBS course and obtained NEET PG-2022 ranks have submitted their online applications along with the scanned copies of their documents for admission into MD (Radio-Diagnosis) in the 3rd respondent College – NRI Medical College & General Hospital, Chinakakani, Managalagiri Mandal, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner and the 4th respondent had applied under Category-C (Institutional Preference-S3) quota as per the regulations of the 2nd respondent University following the eligibility criteria as under: (i) candidates who have completed MBBS/BDS in a particular institution; (ii) Son or daughter of the employee working in the particular institution; (iii) employee of the particular institution; and (iv) employee should have a minimum of six months experience in that particular institution and presently working in the same institution. The 3rd respondent has to issue sponsorship certificate for the student who satisfy the eligibility criteria as per the prospectus issued by the 2nd respondent University for the 2022-23 admissions. As per the notification, applications should be made through online and offline. The 4th respondent submitted application on 09.6.2022. The 3rd respondent has to issue sponsorship certificate for the student who satisfy the eligibility criteria as per the prospectus issued by the 2nd respondent University for the 2022-23 admissions. As per the notification, applications should be made through online and offline. The 4th respondent submitted application on 09.6.2022. The 3rd respondent accepted his application and directed to pay fees to the tune of Rs.50 lakhs to the college account The 4th respondent paid the fees and the College has given the sponsorship certificate bearing Letter No.914/Acad/PG Adm/S3 Sponsorship/2022 dated 23.8.2022 for the course of MD (Radio-Diagnosis). The 3rd respondent also issued sponsorship certificate vide Letter No.924/Acad/PG Adm/S3 Sponsorship/2022 dated 29.8.2022 recommending the petitioner’s candidature for admission to PG course in MD (Radio-Diagnosis) under Category-C (Institutional Preference-S3) as he is working as Junior Resident from 01.2.2022 to till date in the 3rd respondent college. The 3rd respondent had issued sponsorship certificates to the 4th respondent, Dr. Pothineni Dileep for MD (Radio-Diagnosis) under Category-C (Institutional Preference-S3) as he is the student of the institution and to the petitioner, Dr. Thavan Mummaneni for MD (Radio-Diagnosis) under S3 category treating him as employee of the institution, by letter dated 7.9.2022. The 3rd respondent addressed letter to the 2nd respondent University stating that the 4th respondent, Dr Pothineni Dileep was issued sponsorship letter dated 23.8.2022 for MD (Radio-Diagnosis) under management category-C (Institutional preference-S3 quota) seat and the petitioner, Dr.Thavan Mummanei was also issued with sponsorship on 29.8.2022 for M.D (Radio-Diagnosis) and the 3rd respondent asked the 2nd respondent University to consider the candidature of the 4th respondent Dr. Pothineni Dileep for admission into M.D (Radio-Diagnosis) under Institutional Preference-S3 quota for academic year 2022-23 and intimated to ignore the name of the petitioner, Dr. Thavan Munnaneni under Institutional Preference-S3 category quota. Thereafter, another letter dated 21.9.2022 was also issued to the same effect. However, the 2nd respondent issued provisional merit list dated 24.9.2022 showing the petitioner’s name Dr. Thavan Mummaneni at Sl.No.3967. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued notification dated 30.9.2022 for exercising the web options for Phase-I counselling of management quota seats (S1,S2&S3) for admission into the PG Medical courses for the academic year 2022-23 enabling all the candidates whose names are in the final merit position of management quota notified in the University website. The schedule for exercising web options is from 11.00 A.M on 01.10.2022 upto 11.00 AM on 03.10.2022. The schedule for exercising web options is from 11.00 A.M on 01.10.2022 upto 11.00 AM on 03.10.2022. The 2nd respondent released the revised list (final list) of eligible candidates for admission under Institutional Preference (S3) quota seats for PG Medical Degree/Diploma courses for the academic year 2022-23 as on 01.10.2022 and the petitioner’s name was not found in the revised list, whereas the name of the 4th respondent is included in the revised (final) list. Thereafter, when the petitioner was not allowed to exercise his web option, he submitted a representation on 02.10.2022 to the 2nd respondent. Being aggrieved by the action of the 2nd respondent in not including the name of the petitioner in the revised list, the petitioner approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. 3. Sri C.V.R.Rudra Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while reiterating the averments of the writ affidavit and reply affidavit filed to the counters of the respondents would contend that the action of the respondents, in particular the 2nd respondent, in not allowing the petitioner to exercise the web options even though his name is included in the provisional list is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the guidelines issued by the 2nd respondent University for filling up of the management quota seats in Private Non-Minority and Minority Medical & Dental Colleges in the State of Andhra Pradesh for the year 2022-23 and made elaborate submissions while taking this Court to the documentary evidence annexed to the writ affidavit and counters. He would further contend that a notification was issued on 30.9.2022 for exercising web options from 11.00 A.M on 01.10.2022 upto 11.00 A.M on 03.10.2022 and all the candidates whose names are in the final merit list of management quota notified in the University website are only eligible to exercise web options as per the seat matrix displayed in the website. In the provisional merit list his name is shown at Sl.No.3967. Provisional merit list is the criteria for admission into PG Medical Degree or Diploma courses under management quota seats for the academic year 2022-23, which is issued based on the sponsorship letter dated 29.8.2022 given to the petitioner for admission into MD (Radio-Diagnosis) under Category-C (Institutional PreferenceS3) quota. In the provisional merit list his name is shown at Sl.No.3967. Provisional merit list is the criteria for admission into PG Medical Degree or Diploma courses under management quota seats for the academic year 2022-23, which is issued based on the sponsorship letter dated 29.8.2022 given to the petitioner for admission into MD (Radio-Diagnosis) under Category-C (Institutional PreferenceS3) quota. The first notification was issued by the 2nd respondent on 16.8.2022 duly fixing the dates of availability of applications for PG Medical and for MDS from 17.8.2022 at 2.30 P.M to 29.8.2022 5.00 P.M. The above dates are tentative and University reserves its right to change them without showing any reason or advance notice. In the notification dated 16.8.2022 issued by the 2nd respondent guidelines for filling up the management quota seats were given at (a) and (b) which are as under: “(a) The Merit Position of the candidates those who have applied through online in response to the notification issued by Dr.NTR University of Health Sciences for Management Quota seats shall be determined by NEET PG-2022/NEET MDS-2022 scores and as per their eligibility criteria, applicable regulations, guidelines. (b) The University will release final merit position of eligible candidates for exercising web options after verification of uploaded scanned certificates byDr.NTR UHS, Vijayawada.” The seats are categorized into: 1. Category – B (S1) -25% -candidates from all the States and Union Territories of India are eligible for Management Quota Category-B. 2. Category – C (NRI-S2) – 15% -Shall be filled with NRI/NRI sponsored candidates on the basis of Merit among the applicants qualified in NEET PG/NEET-MDS-2022. 3. Category –C (Institutional Preference-3) – 10% -Shall be filled with the candidates sponsored by the Managements of the Private Colleges having Post Graduate Course in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The Copies of uploaded certificates/documents of the petitioner were verified under category-C (Institutional quota-S3) for admission into PG courses. A candidate claiming under employment of a particular institution should have a minimum of six months experience in that particular institution and presently working in the same institution (proof to be produced). The Copies of uploaded certificates/documents of the petitioner were verified under category-C (Institutional quota-S3) for admission into PG courses. A candidate claiming under employment of a particular institution should have a minimum of six months experience in that particular institution and presently working in the same institution (proof to be produced). If a candidate is found to have submitted false information or concealed any relevant information, such candidate is liable to be disqualified for admission and in case already admission is taken, such admission will be cancelled and suitable disciplinary action will be taken against him/her by the University/respective institution and legal issues if any shall be under the High Court of Judicature in the State of Andhra Pradesh. For category-C Institutional Quota-S3 seats shall be filled with the candidates sponsored by the management of the Private Medical/Dental Colleges having Post Graduate courses in the State of Andhra Pradesh. On sponsoring by the Institution, the University will release final merit list for exercising the web options after verification of uploaded scanned certificates by the 2nd respondent University. The 1st respondent Government also issued G.O.Ms.No.70 dated 03.05.2017 framing Andhra Pradesh Private Medical/Dental Un-aided Non-Minority Professional Institutions (Admissions into Post Graduate Medical/Dental Courses Rules, 2017, wherein under the heading seat sharing and admission Clause viii (c) management quota-Sub-ategory-3, 10% seats out of total intake capacity, course wise, in each member institution shall be Institutional preference/In-service management quota seats filled on the basis of inter-se-merit among the applicants qualified in NEET. Under the heading, For Procedure for Grant of Admission into PG (Medical, Dental) courses under the Management Quota Seats, clause 3 states that ‘he shall invite online or offline applications in the form prescribed by it, from the NEET-PG or NEET-MDS eligible candidates for participating in Centralized Admission Process (CAP) for seeking admission to the course to management quota (sub-category 1) and (sub-category 2 & 3) separately’. Clause 4 states that ‘shall prepare a merit list from the eligible candidates who have applied to the management quota seats, online or offline, in the prescribed form for admission into Post Graduate Medical courses and Post Graduate Dental Courses on the basis of the marks at percentile in the NEET-PG examination or NEET-MDS examination. Clause 4 states that ‘shall prepare a merit list from the eligible candidates who have applied to the management quota seats, online or offline, in the prescribed form for admission into Post Graduate Medical courses and Post Graduate Dental Courses on the basis of the marks at percentile in the NEET-PG examination or NEET-MDS examination. He would further submit that as per the admission guidelines, having included the petitioner’s name in the provisional list published on 24.9.2022 showing the petitioner’s name at Sl.No.3926, the 2nd respondent issued notification on 30.9.2022 for exercising the web options for Phase-I counselling of management seats, but the 2nd respondent University arbitrarily has not shown the petitioner’s name in the revised (final) list of admission under (Institutional quota-S3) for PG Medical Degree and was not allowed to exercise web options which is illegal and arbitrary. Sri C.V.Rudra Prasad placed reliance on the decision of the combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No.22812 of 2014 dated 24.10.2014 wherein it is held that for the mistake committed by the 3rd respondent college therein, the petitioner therein could not be deprived of his admission in PG (Pediatrics) and directed the 4th respondent College therein to consider the case of the petitioners therein for admission into MD courses under management quota seats for the academic year 2014-15 subject to the undertaking given by the 4th respondent/NRI College that it will forgo the said seats in the subsequent academic year i.e., 2015-16, subject to the approval of the 2nd respondent therein and contends that the petitioner herein is also entitled for a similar relief. The said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is untenable, as factual matrix of the present case is totally different. 4. Sri Chllaa Gunaranjan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri G.V.Ramakrishna Prasad, Advocate on Record for the 3rd respondent would contend that initially the petitioner was issued sponsorship letter dated 29.8.2022 under employment quota of the 3rd respondent institution by mistake, on verification it is found that the petitioner has not worked in the institution and his sponsorship was withdrawn. The petitioner never worked in the 3rd respondent college to claim under the employment quota. He would further submit that the name of the petitioner is included in the provisional list and not in the revised (final) list. The petitioner never worked in the 3rd respondent college to claim under the employment quota. He would further submit that the name of the petitioner is included in the provisional list and not in the revised (final) list. The 3rd respondent has withdrawn the petitioner’s name from sponsorship vide letter dated 29.9.2022. The petitioner obtained the sponsorship certificate by misrepresenting the respondent college. On verification, it is found that the petitioner never worked in the 3rd respondent college as Junior Resident Doctor in the institution and no appointment order is issued to the petitioner by the competent authority. The benefit of exercising of web option is available only to the candidates whose names are figured in the revised (final) list of eligible candidates. Since the sponsorship given to the petitioner was withdrawn, his name was not figured in the revised (final) list dated 01.10.2022 and he could not exercise the web options. The petitioner never satisfied the admission criteria as he never worked in the 3rd respondent college. The 4th respondent was the only one eligible candidate and there is no requirement of final merit position list as per the guidelines issued in GO.Ms.No.70 dated 03.05.2017 and the 4th respondent satisfied the criteria for admission under Institutional -S3 quota and hence the contra contentions of the counsel for the petitioner are untenable. 5. Sri Guttapalem Vijay Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent while reiterating the averments of the counter of the 2nd respondent would contend that the petitioner obtained sponsorship certificate from the 3rd respondent college by misrepresenting that he is working in the institution and based on such certificate, his name is provisionally included and thereafter the 3rd respondent institution after verifying the service particulars of the petitioner found that he never worked in the institution and sponsored the name of the 4th respondent by withdrawing the petitioner’s sponsorship and hence, his name is not found place in the revised (final) merit list, even though his name is included in the provisional list by mistake and he is not entitled to exercise web options. The contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was not accessed to web options in spite of his representation dated 02.10.2022 has no merit consideration as his name is not found in the final revised merit list and he has not satisfied the criteria for admission in the management Category-C (Institutional Quota-S3). The contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was not accessed to web options in spite of his representation dated 02.10.2022 has no merit consideration as his name is not found in the final revised merit list and he has not satisfied the criteria for admission in the management Category-C (Institutional Quota-S3). The claim of the petitioner for admission under Institutional Quota-S3 as employee is found to be illegal and contrary to the admission guidelines, if a candidate is found to have submitted false certificate by concealing the relevant information, such candidate is liable to be disqualified for admission and the contra contentions of the counsel for the petitioner are unsustainable. 6. Sri P. Durga Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the impleaded 4th respondent while reiterating the averments made in the counter would contend that the petitioner’s name is included in the provisional merit list dated 24.9.2022 only. The petitioner whose name is found in the provisional list has no accrued right for admission in the PG MD (Radio-Diagnosis) in the 3rd respondent college as his name is not shown in the revised (final) merit list dated 1.10.2022 published by the 2nd respondent. As his name is not found place in the revised (final) merit list, the petitioner is not entitled for admission under category-C (Institutional Quota-S3), since, the sponsorship certificate was given to the petitioner even though he never worked in the 3rd respondent college. Sponsorship certificate was given to the petitioner on the basis that he worked as Junior Resident from 01.2.2022 till date, in the 3rd respondent college, whereas the petitioner has been working in Narasaraopet Area Hospital run by the Andhra Pradesh Vaidya Vidhana Parishad (Government Hospital) from 28.3.2022 to 21.6.2022 and has resigned to the said post on 21.6.2022. The said information was obtained under RTI Act, which period of work is within the work tenure of Narasaraopet Area Hospital. The petitioner paid Rs.50 lakhs to the 3rd respondent college on 29.8.2022 by way of ICICI Bank challan. The same was got returned on 21.9.2022. The same was reflected in the ledger accounts of the 3rd respondent college. The said information was obtained under RTI Act, which period of work is within the work tenure of Narasaraopet Area Hospital. The petitioner paid Rs.50 lakhs to the 3rd respondent college on 29.8.2022 by way of ICICI Bank challan. The same was got returned on 21.9.2022. The same was reflected in the ledger accounts of the 3rd respondent college. Having got returned the said amount of Rs.50 lakhs paid towards fess and having known that he has not worked in the respondent college to claim under management category-C (Institutional Quota-S3) under in-service, suppressing the said fact, he approached this Court and obtained interim order and on the ground of suppression of the said facts, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and the petitioner is liable for perjury. He would further contend that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limini as the petitioner suppressed several facts and approached this Court with unclean hands and in support of his claim, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.D.Sharma Vs.Steel Authority of India Ltd., and others, (2008) 12 SCC 481, wherein it is held that a party who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 or of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. If any suppression of facts are found, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. This Court having carefully considered the facts and circumstances and submissions of the counsel and perused the record, found that the 2nd respondent issued notification on 16.8.2022 inviting applications online and offline from the qualified candidates in NEET PG-2022 for admission in the management seats in MD for the academic year 2022-23 in private medical colleges. In response to the notification, the petitioner and the 4th respondent submitted applications to the 3rd respondent college claiming seat in PG MD (Radio-Diagnosis) under management category-C (Institutional preference-S3) by uploading the requisite certificates and documents. Based on this claim, the 3rd respondent college issued sponsorship certificate to the 4th respondent on 23.8.2022 on payment of fee of Rs.50 lakhs to the 3rd respondent college. Thereafter, it appears that the petitioner’s candidature was also sponsored by the 3rd respondent college on 29.8.2022 under management quota category-3 (Institutional Preference-S3). Based on this claim, the 3rd respondent college issued sponsorship certificate to the 4th respondent on 23.8.2022 on payment of fee of Rs.50 lakhs to the 3rd respondent college. Thereafter, it appears that the petitioner’s candidature was also sponsored by the 3rd respondent college on 29.8.2022 under management quota category-3 (Institutional Preference-S3). Based on the said certificate, the petitioner’s name was included in the provisional merit list. Having found that the petitioner was sponsored wrongly as he has never worked in the institution, the 3rd respondent addressed letters to the 2nd respondent on 7.9.2022 and on 29.9.2022 30.9.2022 to consider the candidature of the 4th respondent, Dr.Pothineni Dileep and to ignore the candidature of the petitioner, Dr. Thavan Mummaneni. In the counter of the 3rd respondent it is stated that the petitioner’s name was wrongly sponsored on the premise that he worked in the college. But on verification, it is found that he never worked in the 3rd respondent college and that is the reason why the name of the 4th respondent is recommended to the 2nd respondent University and for ignoring the candidature of the petitioner. As contended by Sri P. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the 4th respondent, the petitioner during that period for which period he claimed employment in the 3rd respondent college worked as Civil Assistant Surgeon (General) in Narasaraopet Area Hospital run by the Andhra Pradesh Vaidya Vidhana Parishad (Government Hospital) from 28.3.2022 to 21.6.2022 and resigned only on 21.6.2022 and thereby, he never worked in the 3rd respondent college. His claim for working in the 3rd respondent college as Junior Doctor from 01.2.2022 and till date of sponsorship is found to be false and incorrect, as the petitioner has got sponsorship certificate by misrepresenting the 3rd respondent college. As per the guidelines for admissions issued in G.O.Ms.No.70, if a candidate is found to have submitted false information such candidate is liable to be disqualified for admission and in case already admitted, the admission will be cancelled and disciplinary action against him/her will be initiated by the University as per rules and the 3rd respondent college. Hence, without any hesitation it could be concluded that the petitioner is not qualified and eligible for admission in MD (Radio-Diagnosis) under the management quota Category-C (Institutional Preference-S3). Hence, without any hesitation it could be concluded that the petitioner is not qualified and eligible for admission in MD (Radio-Diagnosis) under the management quota Category-C (Institutional Preference-S3). Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 2nd respondent having included the petitioners name in the provisional merit list dated 24.9.2022 and issuing notification on 30.9.2022 for exercising web options in phase-I of management quota seats and the petitioner was not allowed to exercise web options as per the notification on 3.10.2022 under management Category-C (Institutional-S3 quota) on the ground that his name is not found in the revised (final) list of eligible candidates for admission under management category-C (Institutional Preference-S3) into MD (Radio-Diagnosis) course could not be found to be illegal and arbitrary, as the petitioner got sponsorship letter from the 3rd respondent college by misrepresentation, without working in the 3rd respondent college. The petitioner by misrepresentation obtained the sponsorship certificate from the 3rd respondent college and the 2nd respondent University having found that the said certificate is false in view of the subsequent letter addressed by the 3rd respondent college on 7.9.2022, 29.9.2022 and 30.9.2022 and his name is not included and shown in the revised (final) merit and rightly denied admission in the PG MD (Radio-Diagnosis) to the petitioner. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner focused on the area that the petitioner is more meritorious than the 4th respondent, which is not considered by the 2nd respondent. The said contention merits no consideration. In view of the Andhra Pradesh Private Medical/Dental Un-aided Non-Minority Professional Institutions (Admissions into Post Graduate Medical/Dental Courses Rules, 2017, wherein procedure is prescribed for grant of admission into Post Graduate (Medical, Dental) courses under the management quota seats, merit alone is not the criteria to provide admission in PG MD (Radio-Diagnosis) under the management Category-C (Institutional Quota-S3) seat in the 3rd respondent college and one has to fulfill other criteria enumerated in the admission rules provided under the category. The contra contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was arbitrarily denied admission in the 3rd respondent college in PG M.D (Radio-Diagnosis) course holds no water. 8. The contra contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was arbitrarily denied admission in the 3rd respondent college in PG M.D (Radio-Diagnosis) course holds no water. 8. In the light of the glaring illegality committed by the petitioner in getting sponsorship from the 3rd respondent college and deleting his name from the revised (final) merit list, having included in the provisional merit list, without any reason or rhyme shown in the letters addressed by the 3rd respondent institution for ignoring the candidature of the petitioner could not be weighed with this court to allow him to participate in the web counseling for admission in PG M.D (Radio-Diagnosis) seat in the 3rd respondent college. If on the basis of such contention if his claim is sustained and given admission as claimed by the petitioner in the 3rd respondent college, it would amount to further continuation of illegality committed by the petitioner. 9. The 3rd respondent college management having given sponsorship letter to the 4th respondent dated 23.8.2022 on payment of Rs.50 lakhs for admission into PG MD (Radio-Diagnosis) course, the action of the 3rd respondent college again sponsoring the petitioner’s candidature for the said seat is found to be under mistake of the fact that the petitioner is working in the 3rd respondent college. However, later on coming to know that a mistake is committed by the 3rd respondent college and the petitioner’s sponsorship is found to be false, addressed letters to the 2nd respondent University to ignore the candidature of the petitioner and considered the candidature of the 4th respondent. Accordingly, the 4th respondent was given admission in PG MD (Radio-Diagnosis) course in the 3rd respondent college. This Court found that the petitioner approached this Court by way of this writ petition, suppressing the facts of his engagement in the Area Hospital, Narasaraopet run by the Andhra Pradesh Vaidya Vidhana Parishad (Government Hospital) and getting the fees of Rs.50 lakhs returned, paid towards admission fees. 10. The petitioner moved the Vacation Court on 07.10.2022 for a direction to the 2nd respondent not to fill up the PG MD (RadioDiagnosis) under management category-C (Institutional Preference-S3) seat for the academic year 2022-23 in the 3rd respondent, NRI Medical College. 10. The petitioner moved the Vacation Court on 07.10.2022 for a direction to the 2nd respondent not to fill up the PG MD (RadioDiagnosis) under management category-C (Institutional Preference-S3) seat for the academic year 2022-23 in the 3rd respondent, NRI Medical College. In view of the legal maxim suppressio vary suggestio falsi, it is settled principled of law that whoever approaches the court with unclean hands suppressing relevant facts, is not entitled for any equity and on that ground alone, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in the writ petition. The wit petition utterly failed both on facts and on law. Hence the writ petition is found to be devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.