logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 7315 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : WP. No. 40429 of 2026 & WMP. Nos. 45392 of 2026 & WMP. No. 45395 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. SURENDER
Parties : Nallamala Dinakar Versus The Union Territory of Puducherry, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Puducherry & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: D. Ravichander, Advocate. For the Respondents: J. Kumaran, S. Atchaya, Advocates.
Date of Judgment : 08-10-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Summary :-
Mistral API responded but no summary was generated.
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the show cause notice issued by the 4th respondent in letter No.62403669/CENTAC/2026 dated 25.08.2026, quash the same and consequently direct the 4th respondent herein to include the name of the petitioners daughter Ms.Nallamala Jerusha Ratna Keerti in the final merit list under the General Category taking into consideration of the letter dated 01.09.2026 and accordingly accommodate her for counselling and allocation of seats, for UG MBBS course in the medical colleges functioning within the Union Territory of Puducherry.)

1. This writ petition has been filed to quash the show cause notice dated 25/8/2026 issued by the fourth respondent in letter No.62403669/CENTAC/2026 and consequently, direct the fourth respondent to include the name of the petitioner’s daughter Ms.Nallamala Jerusha Ratna Keerti in the final merit list under the General Category taking into consideration of the letter dated 01.09.2026 and accordingly, accommodate her for counselling and allocation of seats, for UG MBBS course in the medical colleges functioning within the Union Territory of Puducherry.

2. The case of the petitioner in a nutshell are as follows:-

The petitioner is the father of Nallamala Jerusha Ratna Keerthi (hereinafter referred to as a student). The petitioner on behalf of the student has filed the present writ seeking a direction to set aside the order dated 25/8/2026, whereby, it was informed to the petitioner that his daughter’s application would not be considered for admission to UG Neet under Puducherry Government quota for the reason the student claiming dual residence benefit from the Union Territory of Puducherry as well as State of Andhra Pradesh.

3. The student had written the NEET examination and on account of the petitioner working in State of Puducherry, application was filed for entry into Government College at Puducherry.

4. By way of the impugned show cause notice, dated 25/8/2026, application was not considered for admission by UG NEET based course under Puducherry quota. The reason for said rejection is that the student also claimed benefit in the State of Andhra Pradesh, though the petitioner, father of a student filed an affidavit claiming that the student has not opted for any benefit of residence for admission into UG Medical other than the Union Territory of Puduchery for State quota. The affidavit reads thus:-



5. The facts that are not in dispute are that

                     (i). the student appeared for NEET examination

                     (ii). The application was submitted for Government quota in Union Territory of Puducherry.

                     (iii). The application was also filed for admission into the Government quota in Dr.N.T.R.University of Health Sciences, claiming Andhra Pradesh Non-local.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the student did not claim that she was a resident of Andhra Pradesh but claim that he was a resident of Puducherry only. The application filed for admission into UG MBBS course with Dr.N.T.R.University of Health Sciences is under Non- Local category which means that she did not claim residence.

7. Under 6.2 of the Prospectus of Dr.N.T.R.University of Health Sciences, eligibility criteria for Andhra Pradesh Non-Local Category was that they should be a domicile in Andhra Pradesh and there is no eligibility of the State quota in Andhra Pradesh for the student, since she applied as Andhra Pradesh non-local. Once specifically it is mentioned that the application was for Andhra Pradesh non-Local that itself would show that she is not the resident of Andhra Pradesh University.

8. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in K.THAMILSELVI Vs. 1. THE UNION TERRITORY OF PUDUCHERRY, rep. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOUBERT AVENUE, BEACH ROAD, PUDUCHERRY 605 001 AND 3 OTHERS, (Writ Petition No.36312 of 2026) and argued that under similar circumstances, this Court has directed the respondents to consider the candidature of the student therein.

9. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that though the student has filed for Andhra Pradesh Non Local Category however, Annexure IV A reflects that a student has to be the resident of State of Andhra Pradesh. Once the student claims that she has been a resident of Andhra Pradesh that itself would violate the undertaking that was filed in the form of an affidavit that the student has not claimed the benefit of residence of an admission in any other State.

10. The learned Government Pleader relied on the judgment of this Court in SAMINATHAN Vs. 1. UNION OF INDIA, rep. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, NEW DELHI AND FOUR OTHERS (W.P.No.32182 of 2022).

11. As seen from the application that is made in Dr.N.T.R.University for admission in UG, Annexure IV A requires the student to furnish proof of residence in the said State for a period of ten years. When eligibility criteria even for entertaining an application under Andhra Pradesh Non-Local quota is to show proof of residence for a period of ten years and that itself would reflect that on the basis of residing in the State of Andhra Pradesh, application was made and admission was sought under the said quota.

12. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the application filed before the Centre, Puducherry was under the State quota and the application filed before Dr.N.T.R.University was under All India quota. The said argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted, since the core issue involved in the present case regarding the claim of residence. Specifically, affidavit was filed by the petitioner that the student would not file an application on the ground of residence before any other State, filing an application before Dr.N.T.R University by claiming residence for a period of ten years though under Andhra Pradesh Non-Local quota would itself violate the undertaking given before the fourth respondent CENTAC.

13. For the abovesaid reason, this Court does not find any infirmity with the impugned notice refusing to entertain the application filed by the student.

14. It is admitted by both the counsel that Counselling is going on the third phase of the counselling is yet to start.

15. In the present circumstances, it is left open to the petitioner to withdraw the application made before Dr.N.T.R University and on such proof being filed regarding withdrawal of the application filed before Dr.N.T.R University, the application of the Student filed for admission in Puducherry Region shall be considered and processed in the normal course.

16. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal