HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.32455 of 2014 Date:29.10.2014 Between:
K.Naveeth, S/o K.Sivarao And:
Acharya N.G.Ranga Agricultural Universiy, Hyderabad, reptd by its Registrar and another.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Vedula Srinivas Counsel for Respondent No.1: Sri T.Durga Reddy The Court made the following:
ORDER:
. Petitioner . Respondents The petitioner was provisionally selected for admission in the course of B.Sc.(Horticulture) in the College of Horticulture, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad and a provisional Admission Slip, dated 26.09.2014, was issued to him. Consequent upon increasing the seats in MBBS course in the State, certain candidates who have got admission in B.V.Sc and A.H course have secured seats in MBBS and as a result thereof, they have given up their seats in the said course. Accordingly, a second counselling was held for admission into B.V.Sc and A.H course through sliding by respondent No.1, vide memo No.14002/EXAMS/U.G.ADM/2014, dated 16.10.2014, whereunder 28 students who are admitted in B.Sc. (Agriculture)/B.Sc. (Hons) Horticulture are re-allotted to B.V.Sc and A.H course in various colleges. They were directed to report to the Associate Dean of the colleges concerned on or before 21.10.2014 to register for the course and attend the classes. The petitioner is one among the said 28 students who was admitted into B.V.Sc and A.H course and was re-allotted to respondent No.2-College. Through memo No.14002/EXAMS/ U.G.ADM/2014, dated 22.10.2014, respondent No.1 has extended the time for the re-allotted students to report at their respective colleges up to 25.10.2014, due to postal delays, communication failures and other inevitable reasons. The Associate Dean, College of Horticulture has addressed letter No.730/COH/Acad/2014, dated 24.10.2014, to respondent No.2, wherein he has informed the latter that the petitioner was relieved from the College of Horticulture, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, on 24.10.2014 and the petitioner was asked to report to the Associate Dean of respondent No.2. He has, accordingly, requested the latter to intimate about the petitioner joining in the College, so that the former will send the relevant records and transfer the University/Non-University fund of the petitioner to respondent No.2-College.
The petitioner pleaded that when he proceeded to respondent No.2-College on 25.10.2014, he was served with a notice, dated 25.10.2014, wherein it is informed that the order of respondent No.1 extending the time for joining of the re-allotted students to respondent No.2-college by sliding was cancelled by respondent No.1, vide his memo bearing No.14002/Exams/UG.Adm./2-014, dated 24.10.2014. This action is assailed in this Writ Petition.
I have heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T.Durga Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1.
Respondent No.1 itself, in recognition of certain inevitable problems, has extended the time for reporting by the re-allotted students from 21.10.2014 to 25.10.2014. Acting on the said act, the petitioner was relieved by the Associate Dean, College of Horticulture, Rajdendranagar, Hyderabad to enable the former to join respondent No.2-college.
Sri T.Durga Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1, has not disputed that respondent No.1 has issued memo bearing No.14002/Exams/UG.Adm./2014, dated 24.10.2014, cancelling its earlier proceedings, dated 22.10.2014, whereby it has extended the time for reporting by the re-allotted students from 21.10.2014 to 25.10.2014. He has also not disputed that no prior notice was issued to the re-allotted students about cancellation of the earlier proceedings, dated 22.10.2014, of respondent No.1.
In my opinion, having extended the time for reporting by the re- allotted students, it would be capricious exercise of power to cancel the proceedings extending the time behind the back of the petitioner and other similarly situated persons. Respondent No.1 ought to have shown the required sensitivity while dealing with the career of the students. By the hasty and unwarranted action of respondent No.1, the petitioner and other similarly situated persons are put in an unenviable position, where they can neither rejoin the original course into which they were admitted nor the re-
allotted course. Such a conduct is not expected from respondent No.1, who is the custodian of the interests of the student community.
For the above-mentioned reasons, while declaring the action of respondent No.1, in cancelling memo No.14002/EXAMS/U.G.ADM/2014, dated 22.10.2014, as wholly arbitrary and illegal, respondent No.2 is directed to forthwith allow the petitioner to join the College by giving him admission within three days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Respondent No.1 shall also regularise the admission of the petitioner into B.V.Sc and A.H. course.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed.
As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.40565 of 2014 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.
JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
29th October, 2014 DR