APHC010552262025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 28438 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:-LM1 [3552] Eslavathu Modita Para ...Petitioner Vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Petitioner: Ms. Boppudi Alekhya Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): Mrs.Tata Venkata Sridevi,Standing Counsel for Dr.NTR University of Health Sciences Mr. G. Sai Narayana Rao, Standing Counsel for S.A.A.P CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 14th November 2025 P C : I.A. No.5 of 2025 Requirement of filing the certified copy of the order, dated 11.11.2025, passed in W.P. No.28438 of 2025, is dispensed with. Accordingly, this I.A. is disposed of. I.A. No.4 of 2025 The present Interlocutory Application has been preferred seeking review of the judgment and order, dated 11.11.2025, passed in W.P. No.28438 of 2025 with a further prayer to grant the relief as had been otherwise prayed in the aforementioned writ petition. 2 HCJ & CGR, J io_wp_ 28438_2025 By virtue of judgment and order, dated 11.11.2025, the relief, which was otherwise prayed for by the petitioner, was declined on the ground that the University had since completed the admission process in the sports category in which the petitioner is seeking admission and allotment letters had already been issued. Briefly stated, the petitioner’s case was that she was a candidate, who had participated in the sports activity of Handball at the State level and subsequently at the national level in the event held in April, 2025. The participation at the State level was around December, 2024. In the tentative priority list circulated by the Sports Authority, the placement of the petitioner was at S.No.176. According to the petitioner, the credit for her participation at the national level was not given, which ought to have been considered by the Sports Authority. The stand of the Sports Authority was that the Handball Association of Andhra Pradesh had not been recognized by the S.A.A.P, as although the said Association had made an application for renewal, the requisite documents had not been filed. It was also the case of the Sports Authority that in the absence of the Association being recognized, no credit could be given for her participation at the national level. It was in that background that the petition came to be disposed of denying relief to the petitioner. Notwithstanding the above, there were certain other cases which came for consideration before the Court, and in particular, in the case of Ms. Sayyad Sadiya, who had filed W.P. No.31328 of 2025, in which her allegation was that her case had not been properly considered by the S.A.A.P, as she ought to have been considered in the individual event of Fencing and despite the fact that she had participated at the national level in the event of Fencing, no credit was given on account of her participation. 3 HCJ & CGR, J io_wp_ 28438_2025 Be that as it may, upon directions having been issued in the petition filed by Ms. Sayyad Sadiya, the Sports Authority upon reconsideration fairly conceded that the said candidate could be considered for her participation in the event of Fencing at the national level and therefore, the entire sports priority list was required to be reworked. It is in that backdrop that the petition filed by Ms. Sayyad Sadiya came to be disposed of on 13.11.2025. In yet another case filed by Ms. Krishnamsetty Praneetha in W.P. No.31326 of 2025, the petitioner had claimed that she was not properly considered for admission in the MBBS course and her participation in the Senior National Championship held in the year 2024-25 was not considered. The stand of the S.A.A.P was that her participation in the national level was not considered for the reason that her backup certificate was not in order, as the State Level Championship in the event of Fencing was conducted by the Fencing Association of Andhra Pradesh, who had failed to get its recognition renewed in the year in which the said petitioner had participated at the State level. This was also the case where the Fencing Association had been continuously recognized from the year 2019 but for the year 2024-25, the said Association had not been recognized as they have not applied for recognition by the time the said petitioner had participated. It is, in those circumstances, held as under: “6. In the present case, it can be seen that while it may be true that the Fencing Association of Andhra Pradesh had not sought renewal for the year 2024-25, yet, the achievement of the petitioner at the State Level cannot be disregarded, particularly in view of the fact that she was permitted to participate at the Senior Fencing National Championship 2024-25. 7. The credit and the priority number which is allotted to a candidate in the instant case would be based upon her participation at the Senior Fencing National Championship and not at the State Championship Level, for which no credit is given. 8. The only purpose which is served by requiring a candidate to produce the backup certificate is to ensure that the certificate of participation produced by a candidate at the National Level is genuine 4 HCJ & CGR, J io_wp_ 28438_2025 and that the National Level participation could be justified only if a candidate had also participated at the State Level. It is only for that reason alone that in our opinion the conditions are fixed for producing the backup certificates. 9. In the instant case, notwithstanding the fact that the recognition of the association which had been recognized continuously from the year 2019 was not renewed for the year 2024- 25 and the petitioner played at the State Level as also at the National Level, should not, in our opinion, be read against the petitioner for depriving of her achievement of participation even at the National Level. 10. We, therefore, direct the Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh to consider the case of the petitioner under the sports quota by considering the certificate produced by her for the Senior National Championship for the year 2024-25. Although doubts have been expressed by learned counsel for the Sports Authority regarding the genuineness of the certificate inasmuch as the same does not contain any serial number as is otherwise contained in other certificates, which candidates produced, yet in our opinion that issue may be kept open and the authenticity and genuineness of the said certificate can also be verified subsequently and in case it is ultimately found that the certificate was not genuine or it was forged, the admission granted to the petitioner would be liable to be cancelled. However, since the entire admission process has to come to closure by 14.11.2025, the process cannot be delayed any further.” Be that as it may, it can be seen that post the decision in the case of the review petitioner, directions were in fact issued in the case of Ms. Krishnamsetty Praneetha as also Ms. Sayyad Sadiya for consideration of those candidates in the sports quota by considering the certificates produced by them at the level of national championships for the year 2024-25 and consideration of those petitioners would necessarily require re-working of the priority list, which had been earlier prepared, as also redrawing of the select list by the University. If that be the case, then to deny to the review petitioner a consideration for admission in the said process of selection, who is otherwise similarly situate as the petitioner Ms. Krishnamsetty Praneetha in W.P. No.31326 of 2025, would, in our opinion, be quite unjust. 5 HCJ & CGR, J io_wp_ 28438_2025 Even in the present case, the review petitioner is a candidate who had participated at the national level. The petitioner had played at the State level at a time when the Association had already applied for renewal of the recognition, before the Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh. While it may be true that certain documents were not forthcoming from the said Association, yet the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the same inasmuch as it had been recognized at least till 2021. In any case, following the view already expressed by a Division Bench on 13.11.2025 in Krishnamsetty Praneetha’s case that the participation at the national level would justify the consideration of a candidate, we feel that even in the present case, a similar order is required to be passed. Be that as it may, we allow the review petition and direct the Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh to consider the petitioner based upon her participation at the national level in the event of Handball, notwithstanding the fact that the Handball Association of Andhra Pradesh had not formally succeeded in obtaining renewal of recognition from the Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner be accordingly shown at the appropriate place in the priority list which shall be drawn up today and be forwarded to the University so that the admission process is complete within the timelines prescribed. The general instructions given in our order, dated 11.11.2025, shall be deemed to be a part of this order as well, which shall be faithfully complied with by the Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J akn