Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 752 (TS)

Sanjotha v. State of Telangana

2022-11-24

ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

body2022
ORDER : Abhinand Kumar Shavili, J. 1. This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “…..to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus (A) declaring the action of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in not considering the petitioner participation in sailing competitions 2021 under priority II (f) in G.O.Ms.No.75, dated 18/09/2015 for the purpose of admission into MBBS/BDS courses for the academic year 2022-23 under 1% quota reserved for NCC cadets contrary to the orders of this Hon’ble Court, dated 18/04/2019 in I.A.No.3 of 2018 in WP.No.23930 of 2018 and W.P.No.28822 of 2018 as arbitrary, unjust and untenable (B) direct the 3rd respondent to restrain from initiating prosecution against the petitioner with respect to the certificate relied upon by the petitioner (C) consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for admission into MBBS/BDS courses for the academic year 2022-23 under Priority II (f) in G.O.Ms.No.75, dated 8/09/2015 under 1% quota reserved for NCC cadets in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Heard Sri P.S.Raja Sekhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent, Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, Smt Pranati Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent and Sri P.Kamalakar, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that she has appeared for NEET Under Graduate Entrance Examination 2022 and she has secured decent rank in the entrance examination. She has responded to the admission notification issued by the respondent-University. She is claiming reservation under NCC Quota as she has participated in NCC coupled with National Sailing Competition conducted by the 4th respondent and as per the priorities fixed by the State Government vide G.O.Ms.No.75, dated 8.9.2015, her case has to be considered under category Priority II (f). 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had contended that though the petitioner’s case falls under Priority II (f), the respondents are not considering the case of the petitioner under the said priority on the ground that NCC has not sponsored the candidature of the petitioner to participate in the National Sailing Competition conducted by the 4th respondent. 5. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had contended that though the petitioner’s case falls under Priority II (f), the respondents are not considering the case of the petitioner under the said priority on the ground that NCC has not sponsored the candidature of the petitioner to participate in the National Sailing Competition conducted by the 4th respondent. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had drawn our attention to Notes 4 and 5 of G.O.Ms.No.75, dated 08.09.2015. The Division Bench of this Court has set aside the said Notes vide W.P.No.23930 of 2018, dated 18-04-2019, which would mean that even though the 3rd respondent has not sponsored the candidature of the petitioner to participate in the National Adventure Sailing Championship, still the certificate awarded by the 4th respondent has to be considered for the purpose of placing the petitioner in Priority II (f) of G.O.Ms.No.75, dated 08.09.2015. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to Priority II (f) which reads as follows: “Participants of Para Jumps/Skydiving/Mountaineering/ Sailing/Para Sailing/Rafting/Canoeing& Kayaking/Shooting competitions/Equestrian conducted by the respective Federations/Associations at National Level NCC Games at National Level.” 7. A perusal of the said clause makes it very clear that the participants of Adventure Sports which were conducted by the respective Federation/Associations at National Level as well as National Games at National Level fall under the said category. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had further contended that the State Government has come up with the policy of providing reservation in respect of NCC quota by calling for a report from the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent has submitted a report to the State Government on 23-04-2015. The said report makes it abundantly clear that there is a slash incorporated in between the terms of National Level and NCC Games at National Level, but in G.O.Ms.No.75, there is no slash inserted in between the terms of National Level and NCC Games at National Level, which is creating confusion. Learned counsel petitioner had drawn our attention to Priority II (e) and (f) of G.O.Ms.No.75. Though (e) and (f) are identical, the only difference is Clause (e) deals with Medal Winners and Clause (f) deals with participants in respect of goal winners. Learned counsel petitioner had drawn our attention to Priority II (e) and (f) of G.O.Ms.No.75. Though (e) and (f) are identical, the only difference is Clause (e) deals with Medal Winners and Clause (f) deals with participants in respect of goal winners. In so far as goal winners is concerned, the State Government has never cared to put a slash in between the terms National Level and NCC Games at National Level, but such a distinction is not being maintained. While coming to Clause (f) of G.O.Ms.No.75, dated 08.09.2015, if slash is inserted in between the terms National Games and NCC Games at National Level, then it will be clear that any competitions conducted at the National Level by the Federations/Associations can also be recognized. If slash is not inserted there, it is creating confusion with the participants in the National Competitions conducted by the NCC. In the absence of a slash in Clause (f), the case of the petitioner is not being considered under Priority II (f) of G.O.Ms.No.75. 9. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner had contended that the 4th respondent at para 10 of the counter-affidavit, has taken the stand that the certificate awarded by the 4th respondent was found to be genuine and the 3rd respondent has recommended about the adventure sports what are to be included in its recommendation dated 23.04.2015 and based upon the recommendations made by the 3rd respondent only, the State Government has come up with a policy of reserving seats in favour of NCC candidates vide G.O.Ms.No.75. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by directing the respondents to treat the petitioner to be falling under Priority II (f) of G.O.Ms.No.75 and accordingly, consider her case for admission into MBBS/BDS course. 10. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent, in principle, has admitted that the State Government has come up with reservation policy in respect of NCC based upon the recommendations made by the 3rd respondent vide letter dated 23.04.2015 and draft rules have been submitted to the 1st respondent and at page 77 of the affidavit, the recommendations made by the 3rd respondent are reflected. The same read as under: “(f) Participants of Para Jumps/Skydiving/Mountaineering/Sailing/Para Sailing/Rafting/Canoeing & Kayaking/Shooting Competitions/Equestrian conducted by the respective Federations/Associations at National Level/NCC Games at National Level.” 11. The same read as under: “(f) Participants of Para Jumps/Skydiving/Mountaineering/Sailing/Para Sailing/Rafting/Canoeing & Kayaking/Shooting Competitions/Equestrian conducted by the respective Federations/Associations at National Level/NCC Games at National Level.” 11. In the draft recommendations made by the 3rd respondent, slash has been incorporated in between the terms National Level and NCC Games at National Level, and a separate distinction is maintained between the competitions conducted at National Level and the competitions conducted by the NCC Games at National Level. When it came to issuance of G.O.Ms.No.75, the said slash is missing in Priority II (f). Since the State Government has independently examined the said clause and it has acted only on the recommendations made by the rd respondent, the slash has to be inserted in Clause (f) in between the terms National Level Competitions conducted at National Level and NCC Games at National Level. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed to that effect. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent had contended that the case of the petitioner would be considered under Priority II (f) subject to verification of the certificate relied upon by the petitioner which is allegedly said to have been issued by the 4th respondent. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent had contended that in respect of NCC B certificate, the 3rd respondent can verify the same and submit a report and in respect of the Sailing Certificate which was issued by the 4th respondent, the 3rd respondent has no control and authority to verify the genuineness of the said certificate. 14. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 4th respondent stating that as to how the 4th respondent-Federation came into existence in the form of Registration under Registration of Societies Act and furnished the details. Learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent had submitted that the certificate produced by the petitioner appears to be genuine and it was issued by the 4th respondent. 15. Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that there should be a slash in Priority II (f) of G.O.Ms.No.75, dated 08.09.2015, which was erroneously omitted in between the terms National Level and NCC Games at National Level, as admittedly the slash was included in the recommendations made by the 3rd respondent vide letter dated 23.04.2015, which is the basis for issuance of G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 08.09.2015. 16. 16. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for admission into MBBS/BDS Course under Priority II (f) of G.O.Ms.No.75, dated 08.09.2015. However, the same will be subject to further verification of the sailing certificate issued to the petitioner by the 4th respondent. It is needless to say that the certificate issued by the 4th respondent will be verified with the assistance of State Government. No costs. 17. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.