Dr.NTR University of
Health Science A.P. Vs. B. V. M. Prasad & Ors. [2008] INSC 1232 (28 July
2008)
Judgment
CIVIL APPELLATE
JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4729-4730 OF 2008 ( @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)
NOs. 8414-8415 OF 2008 ) Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, Vijaywada,
A.P.
Rep. by its Registrar
.... Appellant (s) Versus B.V.M. Prasad & Ors. .... Respondent(s)
ORDER
1.
Leave
granted.
2.
Heard
both sides.
3.
These
appeals are preferred by the appellant herein - Dr. N.T.R. University of Health
Sciences, Vijaywada, A.P. represented by its Registrar. The first respondent
was a M.B.B.S. student in the Government Medical College at Ananthapur. He was
to appear for the final year M.B.B.S. examination, and he submitted a
representation through his father for change of the centre of examination. TheUniversity
has rejected the said request whereupon respondent No.1 has filed a writ
petition before the High Court seeking permission to write the examination at
Warangal. It is urged therein by the first respondent that he was having some
depression and he wanted to write the examination at the Medical College,
Warangal as his parents are working there. The High Court, by its interim
order, directed the University to permit the student - respondent No.1 herein,
to write the examination at Warangal. We are told that the student has already
completed the examination and the result is awaited. The High Court, by the
impugned order, directed the authorities to declare his result. Questioning the
same, the University has filed these appeals.
4.
It
was contended by the learned counsel for the University that the High Court
should not have passed interim order giving undue advantage to respondent No.1
herein to write the examination at Warangal as his parents are employed there
and the said direction is also against the rules. The High Court found that the
respondent's case was exceptional one. After observing that this should not betreated
as a precedent directed the official respondents to declare his result. In our
opinion, the High Court has exercised its discretion and we do not wish to
interfere with the same at this juncture.
5.
The
appeals are disposed of accordingly. No costs.
......................................CJI.
(K.G. BALAKRISHNAN)
..........................................J.
(P. SATHASIVAM)
NEW
DELHI;
28th
JULY, 2008.
Back
