logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 TSHC 018 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court for the State of Telangana
Case No : Writ Petition No. 40447 of 2025
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
Parties : Kamireddy Suhas Reddy Versus The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Hyderabad & Another
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Bhagath Sain, Advocate. For the Respondent: Government Pleader for Medical Health FW.
Date of Judgment : 05-01-2026
Head Note :-
Subject
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules / Orders Mentioned:
- order of this Court dated 23.10.2025
- W.P.No.31881 of 2025

2. Catch Words:
Mandamus, Writ, Re‑evaluation, Grievance Committee

3. Summary:
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the university to re‑evaluate his Biochemistry answer script and provide a soft copy. The petitioner relied on a precedent order dated 23‑10‑2025 in W.P. No. 31881 of 2025. Both respondents did not contest this reliance. The Court considered the facts, submissions, and the earlier precedent. It disposed of the petition in accordance with the 23‑10‑2025 order, directing that the petitioner may verify his answer script after paying the requisite fees to the Grievance Committee. No costs were awarded. Any ancillary petitions were ordered to stand closed.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed
Judgment :-

1. Heard Sri Bhagath Sain Bekkam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Medical Health appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and Sri T.Sharath, learned Standing Counsel for Kaloji Narayanrao University of Health Sciences appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2.

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under:

               “…to issue an order, direction or writ particular one in the nature of writ Mandamus Declaring the action of the Respondent no.2 in not considering the petitioner’s request for re-evaluation of Biochemistry (Paper-II) as illegal and arbitrary thereby directing the Respondent no.2 to re-evaluate the said answer script and forthwith provide the soft copy of the Petitioner’s answer script in accordance with law and pass…”

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the subject issue in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court dated 23.10.2025 passed in W.P.No.31881 of 2025 and hence, the petitioner is entitled for the similar relief as extended to the petitioner in W.P.No.31881 of 2025.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 do not dispute the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

5. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION:

               a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case,

               b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2,

               c) The discussion and conclusion as arrived at paragraph Nos.3 and 4 of the present order,

The writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order of this Court dated 23.10.2025 passed in W.P.No.31881 of 2025, with the observation that, as and when the petitioner approaches the Grievance Committee by paying the requisite fees, the petitioner shall be permitted to verify his answer scripts. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal