THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.36867 of 2014
Between: P.T.Swethasri,
Dated:02.12.2014
D/o Dr.P.T.Srinivas ….Petitioner And:
The State of A.P., reptd by its Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical ad Family Welfare, Hyderabad and two others.
… Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri N.Vijay Counsel for Respondent No.1: AGP for Medical Health & Family Welfare (TS) Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri T.Durga Reddy Counsel for Respondent No.3: Smt A.Padma The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2, in excluding the petitioner’s name from the Priority-II list of candidates under NCC quota for admission into Undergraduate courses of ANGRAU, SVVU and Dr.YSR Horticultural University for the academic year 2014-15, as illegal and arbitrary.
At the hearing, Sri T.Durga Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, has submitted that as per G.O.Ms.No.186, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (EI) Department, dated 31.05.2002, the NCC Directorate of A.P. shall be responsible to draw a merit list in respect of NCC cadets seeking admission into NCC quota under all categories and that the priority list has been prepared by the NCC Directorate and communicated to respondent No.2. He has further pointed out that the petitioner has not impleaded the NCC Directorate, without which, no relief can be granted to her.
Sri N.Vijay, learned counsel for the petitioner, has not disputed the fact that the priority list was prepared by the NCC Directorate of Andhra Pradesh and the said Directorate is not impleaded as a party in the Writ Petition.
Considering the fact that the counselling is fixed only for today, it is too late for the petitioner to implead the NCC Directorate at this hour.
As rightly pointed out by learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, the legality or otherwise of the Priority list cannot be adjudicated in the absence of the NCC Directorate.
For the above-mentioned reasons, no relief can be granted to the petitioner and the Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
As a sequel, WPMP.No.46136 of 2014 is dismissed as infructuous.
JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY 02nd December 2014 DR