IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO WP(PIL) NO: 40 OF 2025 Between: National Equivalent Educational Trust, Rep. by its Vice President Saurabh Krishna Upadhyaya, S/o Krishna Bihari Upadhyaya FF 10 Khusnuma Apartment Khandari Lane, Lai Bagh, Lucknow-226001 Ph No.9118880106 Pan Card No.AFFPU1837B Bank Ac No. 5046926505 Bank Name Kotak Mahindra Bank IFSC Code kkbk0005196 Email usaural43<gyahoo.com AadharNo.393616615237 ... PETITIONER AND 1. Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Education, 127 -C Shastri Bhawan New Delhi- 110001 Email uoi.dhc@gmail.com 2. National Medical Commission, Rep. by its Secretary Pocket-14, Sector- 8, Dwarka Phase -1 New Delhi- 110077 Email pg.marb@nmc.org.in 3. Directorate General of Health Services, Rep. by its Director General Room No 446 A Nirman Bhawan Delhi-11 0011 Email dghs@nic.in 4. Dr NTR University of Health Sciences, Rep. by its Registrar Near Siddhartha Medical College, Beside New Government General Hospital, near Ramavarappadu, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh 520008 Email registrar.drntr@uhsap.in ... RESPONDENTS wr Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus to declaring the to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, against the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 by declaring the faulty MopUp round Counselling conducted by Respondent No 4 by converting the PwD category seats into General Category in NEET PG-2024 as illegal, arbitrary, in violation of Article 14, 21 A of the Constitution of India and well-settled principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same and direct the respondents to conduct fresh MopUp round by issuing a fresh seat matrix duly allocating seats under the PwD category. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to accommodate the candidates eligible under the PwD category in the NEET-PG Counselling pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI GHANTA SRIDHAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI PASALA PONNA RAO, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI S.VIVEK CHANDRA SEKHAR Counsel for the Respondent No.4:M/s. TATA VENKATA SRIDEVI, SC FOR DR. NTR UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES The Court made the following: ORDER 1 HCJ&RRR,J W.P.(PIL).No.40 of 2025 APHC010091012025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3446] FRIDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO WP(PIL) NO: 40/2025 Between: National Equivalent Educational Trust ...PETITIONER AND Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.GHANTASRIDHAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Pasala Ponna Rao, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA 2. VIVEK CHANDRA SEKHAR S 3.Tata Venkata Sridevi, Standing Counsel For Dr.NTR University of Health Sciences The Court made the following order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Heard Sri Ghanta Sridhar, learned counsel represented by Sri Gaurav Sukhia and Sri T.V. Sridevi, the learned Standing Counsel for NTR University. 2 HCJ&RRR,J W.P.(PIL).No.40 of 2025 2. The present Writ Petition was filed as a Public Interest Litigation, by the petitioner which claims to be a Trust, established in Uttar Pradesh. The affidavit filed in support of this Public Interest Litigation states that a Registered Office of the petitioner is in Lucknow and that it has been working in the field of Education and Student Rights. The petitioner claimed to have locus standi to initiate the Public Interest Litigation on the ground that it has been working in the field of Education and Student Rights. 3. The gist of the complaint of the petitioner, is that P.G. Medical seats for the year 2024-25 which should be allotted to persons with disabilities were being converted, illegally, into general category seats and were being allotted to general candidates to the detriment of candidates who were persons with disabilities. The petitioner further contended that unfilled seats, reserved for persons with disabilities, could not have been converted into general category seats until the 3'^'^ round of counseling for admission of seats to P.G Medical Course whereas these seats were being converted in the first round of counseling itself. 4. The Public Interest Litigation came up before this Court, on 05.03.2025, when time was sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the matter was posted to 06.03.2025. On 06.03.2025, a preliminary objection as to the locus of the petitioner to file the present Public Interest Litigation was raised. The matter was again taken up for hearing on 17.04.2025, when the locus 3 HCJ&RRR,J W.P.(PIL)-No.40 of 2025 of the petitioner as well as the maintainability of the Public Interest Litigation was raised. During the course of hearing, the deponent to the notice filed in support of the Writ Petition, intervened, by way of video conference, and contended that the Writ Petition was filed for the benefit of persons with disabilities. Upon being questioned, as to the source of his knowledge, relating to the alleged irregularities in the counseling process, the deponent stated that he was in touch with the students as they were being coached in institutions in which he was a part. This Court, pointed out that his involvement in coaching the candidates who are alleged to have been shut out of the process, had not been stated in the affidavit and the same may amount to suppression of fact. Apart from this, it was also pointed out that in such circumstances, the averment in the affidavit that the petitioner had no personal interest in the litigation would be incorrect. This Court, had thereupon directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- before the next date of hearing which was fixed on 01.05.2025. On 01.05.2025, the matter was again heard. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on all the dates of hearing, had vehemently submitted that injustice was being caused to hundreds of students and that a big scam has been perpetrated on persons with disabilities as the seats which should have been allotted to them were converted into general seats and allotted to general candidates. 4 HCJ&RRR,J W.P.(PIL).No.40 of 2025 6. The Registrar of the Health University filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, the maintainability of the Writ petition and the locus of the petitioner was raised. The learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the Health University contended that except a self-serving statement of service to students and persons with disabilities, no material had been placed before the Court to demonstrate such bonafides. It was also contended that the petitioner had not produced ahy of its constituent documents to show the existence of the petitioner- Trust. 7. The Registrar had also stated that the 1322 P.G Medical seats were available for allotment. The number of seats that would be availability persons with disabilities, would be 5% of 1322 seats which would amount to 61 seats across various specialties. However, counseling would be available only to those persons who had qualified in the MEET P.G Examination. The total number of candidates who had qualified for participation in the counseling process was 4,527 candidates including 11 persons with disabilities. These were eligible to participate up to Phase-Ill of counseling. Out of the 11 persons with disabilities, only 9 candidates could be treated as falling in the quota, of persons with disabilities, as one candidate did not undergo the mandatory physical examination and another candidate did not qualify under the quota of persons with disabilities. The details of the 11 candidates were attached as Annexure-ll to the counter affidavit. Out of these 9 eligible candidates, 8 candidates exercised their web option on account of which five seats were allocated under the quota of persons 5 HCJ&RRR,J W.P.(PIL).No.40 of 2025 with disabilities. The remaining 3 candidates were not allotted any seats as the seats chosen by them had already been allotted to higher ranked persons with disabilities. The counter affidavit also set out all the further details as to how counseling had been carried on and the manner in which the seats which could not be allotted to persons with disabilities had reverted to their respective categories. The petitioner did not choose to file a reply to the counter affidavit. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner, during the hearing on 17.04.2025 as well as 01.05.2025 only contended that a huge number of candidates, who fall in the category of persons with disabilities, had been deprived of their opportunity of being allotted P.G Medical seats. No details of the candidates were given by the petitioner. The petitioner did not produce any material, to show that candidates, other than the 11 candidates mentioned in Annexure-A of the counter 8. affidavit of the respondents, had qualified to be allotted seats. 9. Another disturbing feature, in the present case were the communications addressed by the petitioner to the Registrar of the Health University. These communications, by way of whats-app messages and e-mails, show that the Registrar was being threatened with investigations by the Central Bureau of Investigation etc. 10. The petitioner, despite being called upon to explain and describe the activities of the petitioner, in relation to student welfare and the welfare of persons 6 HCJ&RRR,J W.P.(PIL).No.40 of 2025 with disabilities, had conspicuously remained silent on these aspects. The petitioner has not chosen to produce any document to show that the petitioner is a registered trust. The petitioner was also called upon to give details of its source of funds and the balance sheets to verify the activities of the petitioner. However, the petitioner except filing a memo setting out the seat metrix of the Universities in the State in relation to Phase-1 to Phase-Ill did not choose to produce any material. 11. The conduct of the petitioner, throughout the hearings clearly shows that the Public Interest Litigation has not been filed out a genuine concern for the students with disabilities and appears to be more an attempt to threaten the University and the University authorities to fall in line with the requirements of the petitioner. 12. Another aspect which arises is the fact that the seats in question are P.G Medical College seats and the persons on whose behalf, the petitioner is said to be agitating are qualified doctors. Such persons are definitely not part of the population, which is unable to agitate its rights and voice its difficulties. They do not require a Public Interest Litigation to ventilate their grievances. 13. After observing the conduct of the petitioner and the manner in which the entire proceedings had been conducted, this Court is of the opinion that the Public Interest Litigation requires to be dismissed with exemplary costs. 14. Accordingly, W.P.(PIL) is dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- and the same is recovered by way of forfeiting the sum of 7 HCJ&RRR,J W.P.(PIL).No.40 of 2025 Rs. 1,00,000/- which has been deposited by the petitioner with the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if an^shall stand closed. Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Registrar(Judicial), High Court of A.P. at Amaravati. 2. Saurabh Krishna Upadhyaya, S/o Krishna Bihari Upadhyaya, Vice National Equivalent Educational Trust, FF 10 Khusnuma Lucknow-226001 President Apartment Khandari No.91 Ph Lane, Lai Bagh 18880106 Pan Card NO.AFFPU1837B Bank Ac No. 5046926505 Mahindra Bank IFSC Code kkbk0005196 Email Bank Name Kotak usaural43(gyahoo.com Aadhar No. 393616615237(By RPAD) 3. One CC to Sri Ghanta Sridhar, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri Pasala Ponna Rao, Deputy Solicitor General of India, High Court of A.P. [OPUC] Sri S. Vivek Chandra Sekhar, Standing Counsel[OPUC] 5. One CC to 6. One CC to M/s. Tata Venkata Sridevi, SC for Dr NTR University of Health Sciences[OPUC] 7. The Section 8. Three CD Copies. Officer, Account Section, High Court of A.P. at Amaravati. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:01/05/2025 ORDER WP(PIL).No.40 of 2025 dismissing the w.p. with costs