The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleging that certain irregularities were committed in the admission of unofficial respondents in the NTR University of Health Sciences.
The petitioner is a reputed doctor, who is a member of Three-Men Expert Committee, appointed by the High Court in W.P.No.11018 of 2019 alleged that the NTR University of Health Science (Respondent No. 2) has committed certain errors and violations in following G.O.Rt.No.550, dated 30.07.2001, G.O.Rt.No.111, dated 13.08.2019, G.O.Rt.No.159, dated 04.12.2020 and G.O.Ms.No.151, dated 13.11.2020 while granting admission to unofficial respondents.
After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice D.V.S.S. Somayajulu is of the opinion that if G.O.Rt.No.550 is in fact not followed or is violated, the parties affected by the same should be before the High Court.
Even assuming for a moment that the admissions of unofficial respondents in the open competition seat is against G.O.Rt.No.550, the candidates who are affected by the said action of the respondent-University should have a grievance and should approach the High Court for redressal of the grievance. The petitioner, who is aged about 53 years and is a president of Medico Parents Association, cannot espouse the cause of the students who have been purportedly denied their admission by violating the G.O.Rt.No.550.
The Court opined that no substantial public interest that is espoused in the writ and there is no public harm or injury which has to be redressed.
“On the anvil of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is to be noted that the petitioner has neither espoused the cause of poor, downtrodden or marginalized sections of society nor he is alleging defalcation of public money, rampant corruption or fraudulent activities of Government. In fact, the Supreme Court guidelines on PILs clearly caution the Courts against entertaining PILs questioning admission to medical and other institutions.”
Further the Bench observed that the deponent in the PIL is also espousing the case on behalf of the Medico Parents Association, which has supposedly submitted a representation dated 12.04.2022, bringing to the notice of the respondent university certain lapses but the petitioner is not the said Medico Parents Association in the PIL.
“Therefore, at the admission stage itself, this Writ Petition (PIL) is dismissed holding that the present petitioner does not have the locus standi to move this application. No public interest is espoused and it is a private grievance that is being ventilated in this PIL,” the Court ordered.